Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Small Businesses

Henry Bellingham: What plans there are for supporting small businesses in Wales through central Government initiatives.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman looks a bit lonely over there on the Tory Back Benches.
	Small businesses in Wales and throughout the UK are benefiting significantly from the stable economic platform built by the Government and from our measures to promote enterprise and reduce red tape.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his initial observation and also for his response to my question. He will be aware that some schemes, such as the small firms loan guarantee scheme, are going very well. Is he also aware, however, that last week the British Chambers of Commerce announced that the extra red tape and burdens that have been placed on business since 1997 now cost a staggering £40 billion a year? Surely this figure completely dwarfs any of the added value from the Government's schemes. Should not the Secretary of State's priority be to tackle this problem so as to enhance wealth creation in Wales?

Peter Hain: I am not sure whether, by red tape, the hon. Gentleman means the minimum wage, extra parental leave or protection for people with disabilities. He is not saying whether he supports those measures. If, however, he is criticising extra bureaucracy, I agree with him. We are tackling that and bearing down on it, as he was fair enough to acknowledge in respect of the small firms loan guarantee scheme. He must know that small businesses are booming in Wales. There is a fantastic record of start-ups and the failure rate is lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I visited Pembrokeshire recently and found that the economy, which was on its back 10 years ago, is now booming. The level of small business creation there is now the fourth highest in the entire United Kingdom.

Kevin Brennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury recently met representatives of small businesses in my constituency and that they were very appreciative of the efforts of central Government? They certainly conveyed the message that slashing £500 million from the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry would not help small businesses in Wales in any way at all.

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. Abolishing the DTI, as the Liberal Democrats propose, would be even worse for small businesses in Wales. The choice before the country, and the choice for Wales, is whether to go back to the risk posed by the Conservatives to small businesses and to economic instability and bankruptcies. Ten years ago, small businesses were failing and going bankrupt at a rate of 1,000 a week. Now, they are growing right across the country.

Simon Thomas: What further support could the Secretary of State give to small businesses in my constituency and throughout Wales by getting rid of the flat-rate non-domestic rates system and establishing a local income tax and a tax for small businesses based on their profit rather than on the rateable value or the size of their property? Surely that would provide a significant boost to the profitability and future success of many small businesses in Wales. Will the Secretary of State examine that proposal?

Peter Hain: The issue of business rates and their effect on small businesses is being examined by the Welsh Assembly at the moment, because there is an issue there. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is advocating the replacement of the entire system of local government funding by a local income tax, I have to say to him and to the Liberal Democrats that that would be disastrous for hard-working families right across Wales, many of whom are on modest to average incomes and would pay much more in extra income tax than they are paying in council tax. It is Labour's huge extra investment in local government finance and public services that is benefiting the local economy, compared with the cuts that many other parties are proposing.

Bill Wiggin: The average small business in Wales spends 23 hours a month filling in Government paperwork. That rises to 73 hours for those employing more than 25 people. Self-employment in Wales has decreased by 8 per cent. in the last year, and the number of people declared bankrupt in Wales rose by 31 per cent. in 2004. Seventy-five per cent. of those were people bankrupting themselves, which is more than double the rate of four years ago. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it?

Peter Hain: What I am going to do is not listen to Tory attempts to talk Wales down. The truth is that employment in Wales is now at its highest ever in our history, compared with the mass unemployment under the Conservatives, and the level of small business dynamism in Wales is better than ever before. Wales is going from strength to strength. We are beating everybody in sight on the rugby field—we have beaten England and we are going to beat Scotland and Ireland—and we are cleaning up in the small business sector. Wales is now one of the most dynamic parts of Europe and the hon. Gentleman should be supporting it, not talking it down.

St. David's Day

Simon Hughes: What assessment he has made of the merits of making St. David's day a national holiday in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: No such assessment has been made, but the absence of a public holiday on St. David's day has not diminished the appetite of Welsh people everywhere to celebrate 1 March in style and with pride.

Simon Hughes: That is not an adequate answer, because the pressure in Wales for an ability to celebrate with pride by having a national holiday is mounting every year. The rugby team does its bit; the people on the streets of Cardiff yesterday did their bit; the new millennium centre has made its contribution. Will the Government get on with it, carry out the assessment and then, if the will of the people of Wales is to have a national holiday, give them the national holiday that they deserve to give back to Wales the pride in St. David's day that it justifiably needs?

Don Touhig: There is certainly no lack of pride in Wales in celebrating St. David's day. The pattern of bank and public holidays in the United Kingdom is well established and accepted, and the Government have no plans to change it. It is estimated that it would cost about £2 billion to have an additional bank holiday in the UK. However—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman stops chuntering and listens, I will be able tell him that if a case were passed to the Government—based on full consultation with business and industry, the health service, local government and other stakeholders, and taking account of the full impact on the economy and our essential services—we would consider the matter.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend will be aware of my strong support for St. David's day being a national holiday, and I am pleased that he is to open a new consultation process. In that consultation, will the Wales Office consider the Republic of Ireland, which has high productivity and a high number of public holidays, and which uses St. Patrick's day to promote Ireland and the Irish economy in the four corners of the world, to the benefit of the Irish people and the Irish economy?

Don Touhig: So that my hon. Friend is under no misunderstanding, I am not proposing any consultation. I am saying that the Government have no plans to change the arrangement of bank holidays, but if we had a case put to us we would consider it. I take his point, but there are matters that need to be assessed very thoroughly indeed—the impact on our economy, for example. There may be benefits for our tourism industry from a public holiday on St. David's day, but there would perhaps be a downside for other parts of industry. Until we received a full and proper assessment, it would be too early for the Government to make any comment or decision whatever.

Employment

Martyn Jones: What assessment he has made of current employment levels in Wales.

Peter Hain: Employment in Wales is at a record level with more people in work than ever before. According to the latest figures, employment in Wales rose by a massive 15,000 compared with a year ago.

Martyn Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the first time since figures have been produced in this country, unemployment in Clwyd, South is less than 2 per cent., which is considered full employment? Is he further aware that under the Tories, when I was elected to Parliament in 1987, the figure was 16 per cent? There are not a lot of Conservative Members here today—[Hon. Members: "Three."] The Conservatives could do nothing about that.

Peter Hain: Indeed, and that is why Tory MPs lost their jobs at successive elections. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the incredibly strong employment situation in his constituency and right across north Wales. Under the Conservatives, 39,000 people in north Wales were unemployed. Under Labour, that figure has fallen right down to 7,600, and there are more than enough vacancies in the employment market to match that. So, the message is to continue with economic stability, low interest rates, job creation and public investment—all of it creating the most dynamic economy in north Wales for generations.

Bill Wiggin: An Institute of Welsh Affairs report says:
	"On the surface . . . unemployment appears to have reached tolerably low levels, but when combined with sickness and disability claimants, the proportions not working are higher than almost anywhere else in the UK."
	When will the Secretary of State realise that decreasing unemployment rates are nothing to brag about when the long-term unemployment rate has increased by 21.8 per cent. in the past year? Economic activity stands at 75.6 per cent. compared with 78.7 per cent. for the UK. The rate has continued to fall over the past year, so what has he got to boast about?

Peter Hain: I am not boasting; I am telling the facts as we know them in Wales. The economy is more buoyant than it has been for generations and is light years away from the misery and devastation of the Conservative years. Even today in south Wales, the Ministry of Defence has announced that the Atlas consortium, which includes world-class companies such as Cogent, Logica and General Dynamics, has been awarded preferred bidder status for a £4 billion contract for high-tech security communications. Hundreds of new jobs are coming to south Wales, and it was recently announced that the contract for the AirTanker project has gone to Airbus in Broughton. There has been very good news about jobs for both north and south Wales over the past few days.

Mark Tami: As my right hon. Friend has said, the AirTanker project is excellent news for north Wales. It will secure many thousands of jobs, including thousands of jobs throughout the United Kingdom and in the aerospace industry as a whole. Does it not also demonstrate the Government's commitment to British industry?

Peter Hain: It does indeed. I am delighted for Airbus, which is now one of the leading world-class companies. It is doing better each year, with more jobs, more high-quality investment and the support of a Government who provide economic stability, lower interest rates and investment in skills, allowing it to flourish and win contracts like this.

Roger Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the big disincentives that prevent small businesses from increasing the number of jobs is the huge burden of statistical surveys that they are required to undertake? Will he go with me to visit the Radnor Hills mineral water company, which is required to fill in eight forms at any one time and may have to fill in more than 30 in a year? Representations have been made to the Treasury, but it says that the company must continue that work.

Peter Hain: I should be happy to look into the matter for the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that the business climate in his constituency is better than it has been in living memory. More jobs are being created, unemployment has fallen and there are business start-ups right across Wales, including in his constituency. I hope that he is backing those, rather than talking the economy down as the Conservatives always try to do.

Betty Williams: Given that long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 89 per cent. in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend tell us what effect the abolition of the new deal would have on unemployment prospects in my constituency and, indeed, Wales as a whole?

Peter Hain: It would have a disastrous impact. It is incredibly irresponsible of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to advocate the abolition of the new deal. That would take us back to the days when young people in Wales had no hope and no opportunities, and people with disabilities and lone parents were left at home and ignored. We have supported them, more and more are starting work, and the new deal has been a fantastic success.

Child Poverty

Alan Williams: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures to reduce child poverty in Wales.

Don Touhig: I am proud of this Labour Government's historic commitment to halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it within a generation. Since 1997, 2.1 million children in Great Britain have been taken out of absolute poverty. The data show that progress made in Wales over the same period has been at least in line with progress made in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Alan Williams: I welcome that evidence of the alleviation of the problem, but does my hon. Friend agree that all too often child poverty is a function of ongoing family poverty? How effectively are we using the education system to enable the current younger generation to break free of that cycle?

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend will know that for the people whom he and I represent—working people in Wales—education has been the key path out of poverty. The commitment of the Government and our colleagues in the Assembly to investing in education, and ensuring that our people have the basic grounding and skills that they need, is making an important contribution to the eradication of poverty in our country.
	Since November 2003, almost 27,000 families in Swansea and more than 350,000 in Wales as a whole, have gained from child benefit. The child tax credit introduced in 2003 is benefiting 225,000 families in Wales and 17,000 in-work families in Swansea. Those and a host of other measures are contributing to the reduction of poverty in our society. That is a commitment about which the Government are absolutely serious, and one on which we are delivering.

Lembit �pik: Is the Minister aware that the closure of children's care centres could exacerbate the problem of child poverty? For example, Country Kids, which currently operates a pre-school day nursery as well as an after-school and school holiday club for many children, is due to close as a result of a 300 per cent. hike in staffing costs in the past three years, caused by regulations imposed by the Wales care standards inspectorate. I accept that the Minister cannot give me a detailed answer today, but is he willing to meet me to discuss this serious issue, which surely affects more constituencies than just mine?

Don Touhig: Indeed, I will take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If he would like to give me some information, I will happily discuss it with him and see what can be done. However, he will recognise that this Government have put huge resources into ending the problem of child poverty, and I only wish that his party were as supportive of that as they are of some other things.

John Smith: Recognising the important link between nursery education and the elimination of child poverty, is my hon. Friend aware that the Tory-controlled Vale of Glamorgan county council is going to withdraw all full-time nursery provision from September? Will he meet his counterparts in the Welsh Assembly Government to try to prevent implementation of this disastrous policy?

Don Touhig: I am not surprised at anything that the Tories do in my hon. Friend's council. When we came to power in 1997, the Tories left a shameful legacy of child poverty. The problems of poverty and social exclusion across Wales and the huge gap between the rich and the poor were evident to everybody. It is important that we continue this Government's commitment to investing in education and overcoming the problems of child poverty. One child in three in Wales lived in a low-income household when the Conservatives were in government; they will never be in government again to damage and harm our people, as they did in the past.

Bill Wiggin: Shortly after the Chancellor announced that more money would go into child care in the UK, the National Assembly cut funding for before-school and after-school clubs by 60 per cent.from 1 million to 400,000. Will the Minister order the Assembly to follow England, as his boss reportedly did in respect of the health service?

Don Touhig: The hon. Gentleman's party has a history of neglect in these matters in Wales. We hardly need lectures from a party that, when in office, waged a war of attrition against mining communities and damaged thousands of our people, putting them on the dole and leaving them in negative equity. In addressing a party conference in Wales, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party said of an important contribution that we are making to overcoming poverty, the minimum wage, There is only

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister can write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what he said.

Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of Home-Start in Newport and elsewhere in Wales, mobilising as it does sensitively and practically the resources of the voluntary and statutory sectors to help families with children in need, better to ensure that such children grow up other than in poverty?

Don Touhig: I certainly endorse what my right hon. Friend says. I have the same experience in my constituency, where people are making a hugely positive contribution to tackling the difficulties that poverty poses in our society. Of course, such initiatives are funded by this Government, who are committed to doing something about child poverty, unlike the Conservatives, who plan billions of pounds-worth of cuts in our public services. Whenever an election may come, that message will be sent loud and clear to the people of Wales.

Welsh Language

Hywel Williams: If he will bring forward further legislative proposals in relation to the Welsh language.

Peter Hain: I have no plans to do so.

Hywel Williams: I have to confess that I am rather disappointed by that answer. Can the Secretary of State confirm that no legislative changes are required to put into practice the First Minister's intention to bring the Welsh Language Board back into the Welsh Assembly Government and to establish the office of the y dyfarnwr?

Peter Hain: I have not received any request for legislative proposals in that respect, although the First Minister has said that he will look for an opportunity, should it arise.

Llew Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are better and far more cost-effective ways of supporting the Welsh Language than ploughing more than 100 million each year into a television channelS4Cthat very few people watch? Indeed, the only people who seem to benefit from that 100 million are the well-heeled people running that company.

Peter Hain: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, as I believe that S4C has contributed to the rise of Welsh speaking in Wales, which we all welcome. Speaking of the Welsh language in Wales is now stronger than it has been for generations and we would like to see a Welsh language channel continuing to thrive.

Adam Price: Twelve years after the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1993, and despite the promises of successive Governments, it is still not possible to register births in the Welsh language. Does the Secretary of State believe that parents in Wales should be able to register their children's birth in the language of their choice?

Peter Hain: I would certainly be happy to look further into that, but I note that the former Welsh Language Board chairman, Rhodri Williams, said:
	We have not supported calls for a new Welsh Language Act. We believe it's through persuasion that we can get companies to use the language.
	I realise that that does not directly address the hon. Gentleman's point, but it should be taken into account in the context of the overall legislative status of the language. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

New Deal

Martin Caton: What assessment he has made of the effect of the new deal in Wales.

Peter Hain: Between January 1998 and September 2004, more than 80,000 people secured jobs through the new deal in Wales.

Martin Caton: As my right hon. Friend says, the new deal has made a tremendous impact on employment in Wales, including for disabled people. Indeed, 7,400 Welsh people have found work through the new deal for disabled people. It remains the case that someone on incapacity benefit for more than a year has only a one in five chance of finding employment within the next five years. One proven way of dealing with that has been through job brokering, as offered by organisations such as Shaw Trust in Wales. Do the Government intend, as they roll out their pathways to work programme, to use the expertise of the voluntary sector to get those people back into work?

Peter Hain: Yes, indeed. We have some exciting, even moving, examples, such as the Shaw Trust in Wales, where the new deal has funded people with disabilitiessometimes the partially sighted or completely blindand brought them into work through intensive training. That has happened in the Shaw Trust centre at Llandarcy, and Broker Cymru in Neath has helped people on incapacity benefit. Instant Muscle in Pontypridd has also helped people get into work. All that would be at risk if the new deal were scrapped, as the Conservative and Liberal Democrats propose. That is why the Labour Government will continue to fund the new deal generously and provide people with disabilities the chance to work.

Stamp Duty

Elfyn Llwyd: What assessment he has made of the effects of current rates of stamp duty in poorer areas in Wales.

Don Touhig: Three hundred and sixty-three wards in Wales benefit from the Government's stamp duty exemption scheme. In those areas, stamp duty is not payable on properties worth less than 150,000, helping to make housing more affordable in the poorer parts of Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that response. He will recall that in a debate some months ago he agreed that there was a crisis in the provision of affordable homes in Wales. Will he look at the discussion document that we produced in January and help to open up debate across party lines to deal with that crisis in Wales? It behoves all of us in every party to do our best to sort this one out.

Don Touhig: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and the Government are happy to have dialogue with anyone to help resolve these matters. Perhaps he will forgive me if I chide him a little about one of his party's websites in the south Wales valleys, which has links to homesafar.com, suggesting that people live the dream and buy their own holiday homes. I wonder whether that is a new Plaid Cymru policy. The website also invites people to go to another website called thankyoutony.com. That is good advice, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to go to that website and thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I applaud the initiative whereby people living in communities first areas in Wales have exemptions from stamp duty? It has undoubtedly been a boon to many living in the poorest areas in my constituency, who are now able to get a foot on the property ladder.

Don Touhig: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. The relief is an important contribution. We must also remember that, as a result of a strong economy, mortgage rates are now at their lowest for 40 years. We are doing a great deal to ensure that people who want to buy their first home get their foot on the first rung of the ladder. Stamp duty relief is making a major contribution to that and I welcome my hon. Friend's comments.

English Hospital Treatment

Hugo Swire: What discussions he has held with the National Assembly for Wales Government Secretary for Health on the treatment of Welsh NHS patients in English hospitals.

Peter Hain: I met with the Assembly Health Minister last month and we discussed a range of health issues.

Hugo Swire: It is very good news that the Secretary of State met the Health Minister, but what did he actually say? Hundreds of people in Wales are sitting waiting for treatment on the NHS and, because of the inactivity and complacency of this Government, they are not allowed to be treated in England. When will the Secretary of State do more than talk and actually tell the Assembly to get its act together to get those people treated quickly?

Peter Hain: What could be more inactive and complacent than the Tory record in Wales of sacking nurses and doctors and closing hospitals? We will continue to invest in the recruitment of hundreds more doctors and thousands more nurses. The people of Wales will know at the general election that under Labour waiting times are coming down, but under the Tories' plans the health service would collapse and be privatised.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Nigel Beard: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2nd March.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Nigel Beard: The greatest assets this country has are the skills and talents of its people, but many women are excluded from using their abilities in work because of the difficulties of combining a job with having children. How will the Government help to overcome those obstacles?

Tony Blair: I am delighted that my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that when we came to office maternity pay was just over 50 a week. We have doubled it, and we have increased maternity leave from 14 weeks to 26 weeks. We want to increase that to nine months from April 2007. We have introduced paid paternity leave, and we are also now offering wrap-around child care between the hours of 8 in the morning and 6 at night for children aged three to 14. Under those measures, we will go from a country with some of the worst provision in Europe to one with some of the best. That is a record of which we can be proud.

Michael Howard: Margaret Dixon is a 69-year-old pensioner who lives just outside Warrington. She is in constant pain and desperately needs an operation. Because she has a weak heart, she has been told that her chance of surviving that operation is less than 50:50. On seven separate occasions, she has been given a date for the operation, been prepared for it and said goodbye to her family in case she did not survive. On each of those seven occasions, her operation has been cancelled. She has praised the doctors and the nurses; but can the Prime Minister explain how, after eight years of his Government, all the money they have spent on the NHS and all the promises they have made, that can happen in Britain today?

Tony Blair: I have to look into the details of the particular case the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions. It is true that, literally seven or eight minutes before Prime Minister's questions, he faxed me some of the letters about this case, but obviously I have not had the opportunity to look into it. If it is as described, it is completely unacceptable, but I do not know the details of it. Frankly, probably neither does he at the moment. However, I think that it is wrong to take a case which, if true, is unacceptable, and to try to make what I believe to be an exception into a rule for the national health service.
	The fact is that the vast majority of people treated by the NHSa million every 36 hoursare treated extremely well. Let me remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when he was a Cabinet Minister waiting lists went up by 400,000. They have fallen by more than 300,000 under this Government.

Michael Howard: Mrs. Dixon's is not an isolated case. Last year, 67,000 people had their operations cancelledan increase of 10,000 compared with five years ago. On five of the seven occasions when Mrs. Dixon's operations were cancelled she was actually in hospital being prepared for the operation. Will the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks so many operations like Mrs. Dixon's are cancelled in that appalling way, causing such trauma not just to the patients and their families, but to the doctors and nurses who are involved as well?

Tony Blair: Of course it is unacceptable if an operation is cancelled, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to point out that the number of operations that are cancelled is a very small proportion of the overall number of operations. There are millions of people who have operations in the national health service every year and are extremely well treated.
	Let us be quite clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party are trying to do: they are trying to use an individual case to undermine the basic principles of the national health service. Let me make one thing quite clear: he and his party opposed every penny of the extra investment that can be seen in extra nurses, extra wards and new hospitals, and in the fact that cancer deaths are down by more than 30,000 under this Government and cardiac deaths are down 25,000 a year.
	Yes, there are problems in our national health servicethere are in all health care systemsbut any reasonable person looking at our health care system today would see exactly where the money is going and why it is so wrong for the Conservatives to oppose that.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister talks about the fall in the number of deaths from cancer and heart disease. That is of course very welcome, but the OECD has said that that is part of a long-term trend that started long before the Government came to power and it has not got better under Labour. Nothing that the Prime Minister has said explains why the number of cancelled operations has increased.
	In the case of the hospital where Mrs. Dixon hopes to be treated, the number of high dependency and intensive care beds has fallen under this Government. No one denies that more money has been spent on the national health service, but it has not reached the front line. Is it not the case that there are more bureaucrats than GPs in primary care trusts; that the number of managers in the NHS is increasing three times as fast as the number of doctors and nurses; and that average waiting times have gone up in the past four years? Is it not the case that Mrs. Dixon and the 67,000 patients who have had their operations cancelled represent the real world and the real NHS, and that the Prime Minister is living in an entirely different universe?

Tony Blair: First, let me point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the reason why, for example, the number of cardiac deaths is falling is, to a large degree, the investment made by the Governmentopposed by him and his party. Secondly, of course there are casesexceptional cases, I believein which operations are cancelled or patients are not well treated. It is a calumny on the national health service to say that that is the rule. The rule is that people are treated excellently in our national health service.
	When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that more bureaucrats than nurses and doctors are appointed, that is completely false. There have been about 70,000 to 80,000 extra nurses and more than 10,000 extra doctors appointed; there are people working in our national health service today who would not be working there but for the extra investment that we have put in.
	What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal? That is what he does not tell people. It is to take 1 billion out of the national health service and spend it on his voucher scheme, which would give people who go private half the cost of their operation.

Bernard Jenkin: They would get treated.

Tony Blair: Only if they could afford the other half. Do these Tories never learn? Let the hon. Gentleman tell us how an old-age pensioner, living on their pension, will afford a hip operation. They have never changed and they never will change, which is why they should never get back in charge of our health service.

Michael Howard: rose[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Michael Howard: It is no use having any of that simulated anger from Labour Members. Does not the Prime Minister know that the number of people without any medical insurance who have to pay out of their own pockets all the cost of going private because they cannot get the treatment that they want under the national health service has tripled, to 250,000 a year under this Government? That is the reality of the national health service under this Government. We will increase investment and improve the service so that we have a health service of which we can be truly proud.

Tony Blair: May I say how delighted I will be if we spend the next few months arguing about the national health service and which party would be best left in charge of it? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the previous Government, waiting lists indeed rose by 400,000. People were waiting more than 18 months for their operations. We had hospital buildings that were virtually falling to bits and cuts in the number of beds. He mentioned high-dependency beds, but we have increased the number of those beds.

Michael Howard: Not in Warrington.

Tony Blair: Although I am only going on the letter that I received literally minutes before I got in the Chamber, I thought that the chief executive of the hospital had explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it had been given 3 million for extra high dependency beds next year. I agree that it would be better if that came quicker and if we were able to make faster progress, but I will never agree with introducing charges to the national health service.

Michael Howard: indicated dissent.

Tony Blair: Yesthose vouchers will go to anyone who is able to afford half the cost of their private operation. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box to explain how people would pay for the other half if they did not have the money.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very surprised at the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman).

Gerry Steinberg: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a desperate day for Durham, my constituents, perhaps many of his constituents, and also for me, because I could be asking my last Prime Minister's question on this sad note? Is he aware that LG Phillips today announced the closure of its Durham factory, which has made cathode tubes for televisions for more than 30 years in my constituency? It was announced this morning that 800 people will be made redundant, even though Phillips knew for the past seven years that cathode televisions were becoming obsolete in favour of flat-screen televisions. Does the Prime Minister agree that Phillips, in acting like an ostrich, has let down its loyal work force by failing to invest in new technology? Will he ensure that everything possible is done to alleviate this absolutely desperate situation and to assist the hundreds of workers who will be made redundant in July?

Tony Blair: I am obviously aware of the situation. The reason why it is happening is the switch to flat-screen televisions. If my hon. Friend would like, he and I can meet to discuss how best to make progress. I assure him, however, that we will do whatever we can to put in place an emergency operation for the workers who might be made redundant so that we can work with them to provide additional jobs. I am happy to say that unemployment in County Durham is at a 30 or 40-year low, so other jobs are around. However, those people, especially skilled workers, will find things difficult, so we will do absolutely everything that we can to help them.

Charles Kennedy: Would the Prime Minister acknowledge that if we are seriously to tackle the ongoing discrimination against women in the operation of our pensions system, the best way of doing so would be to establish their automatic entitlement to pensions based on residence, not national insurance contributions? Many women lose out because they have to take time out of the labour market to bring up children or care for elderly people as well.

Tony Blair: As my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said, there is a case for that. On the other hand, we must make sure that we can afford it, as the bill will run to several billion pounds.

Charles Kennedy: Yes, we can certainly do it. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that all the indications show that it is the oldest pensioners who tend to be the poorest pensioners? Given women's longevity, clearly two thirds of the poorest pensioners are women. Why does he not see the merit of frontloading the system for people aged 75 so that they receive an extra 25 a week or 100 a month, which would tackle that inequality much more effectively than at present? That is what we are arguingwhy will he not argue it as well?

Tony Blair: As a result of the additional sums of money that we have put into helping pensioners, nearly 2 million pensioners who used to live in acute hardship no longer do so. For example, the poorest pensioners in 1997 were expected to live on only 70 a week. The pension credit guarantees at least 110 a week for single pensioners and 167 for couples. It is also correct that we introduced the winter fuel payment and free TV licences for over-75s, so we have done a lot.

Bob Russell: Answer the question.

Tony Blair: I am about to do so, thank you very much. If we were to do what the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) suggested, we would have to explain where we got the money from. His proposal, as I understand it, is to take that money from top-rate taxpayers by raising their rate to 50 per cent[Interruption.] Where is it from then?

Charles Kennedy: There would be 5 billion of annual public expenditure savings.

Tony Blair: I think that I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that, as it sounds a little too simple and glib. If we are going to make promises to pensionersand we have provided an awful lot more for pensionerswe have an obligation to explain responsibly where that money will come from; otherwise he, like the Opposition, is making promises that he cannot possibly keep.

Richard Burden: My constituency of Birmingham, Northfield will receive over 1 million of neighbourhood renewal funding in the coming year, all but 75,000 of which will come from the central Government-funded neighbourhood renewal fund. The money will have a significant impact in cutting crime, expanding youth facilities and improving the environment so that strong communities can be safe communities. Can I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is vital in the years to come that that level of funding be sustained? Could he tell me what the impact would be if there were a 35 billion cut in public

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister need only answer the first part of the question.

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is important to keep the regeneration money going, because it is doing good in many communities, including his own. I have seen for myself in different parts of the country how local communities, including some of the poorest and most deprived, have been able, through Sure Start programmes, housing regeneration and employment schemes, to make a better life for the people in those areas. It is vital that we keep the money going. My hon. Friend is right that we have increased the number of police officers in the west midlands and elsewhere, which is why it is important that the investment be kept there. I can assure him on behalf of the Government that we will never ever agree to the cuts proposed by the Opposition.

Lembit �pik: As the Prime Minister may know, today is my 40th birthday and yesterday was St. David's day, but neither of them is a public holiday yet. Would he therefore be willing to meet a cross-party delegation to discuss the case for making at least one of them a national holiday for Wales in future?

Tony Blair: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 40th birthday. [Interruption.] I would commiserate if he were 50, but he can still be congratulated on his 40th. In respect of St. David's day, I hate to be a spoilsport, but there are strong arguments for public holidays for many things. [Interruption.] Those arguments are made on behalf of many other parts of the country. However, before we could do such a thing we would have to have extensive consultation, not least with business. I am afraid that unless I could be sure that it would not damage the economy in Wales and elsewhere I could not agree to such a holiday. I wish that I could give the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) a better birthday present, but probably the best thing we can do for his 40th birthday is continue with a Labour Government.

Michael Connarty: Is the Prime Minister impressed by the fact that the Post Office, which was rescued from privatisation by the election of a Labour Government, is on target to make a 400 million surplus, thanks to the hard work of its work force and the sacrifices they have made? Can the Prime Minister give a commitment that the Labour Government will go into the general election pledged to carry out the Labour party's Warwick agreement, that we will have a fully publicly owned Post Office in good health, and that we will review the work of the regulator to ensure that the Post Office can deliver the universal service obligation to deliver letters to all our 55 million constituents?

Tony Blair: I am, of course, committed to the Warwick agreement. The employees of the Royal Mail do an excellent job, often in very difficult circumstances. I think my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the change programme going through the Royal Mail is necessary because of the competitive pressures to which it will be subject. The employees of the Royal Mail do a good job and are a national asset, and I certainly would not want to see them wasted.

Michael Howard: Last week the Prime Minister said that further debate would not improve the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. On Monday it did. The Home Secretary conceded that decisions on house arrest would be made by a judge. We welcome that, and we hope that debate in the House of Lords will improve the Bill further. We have now put forward the additional safeguard of a sunset clause, over and above the other improvements that we seek, to ensure that Parliament has the time to consider these issues properly before any permanent legislation is put in place. Does the Prime Minister support that proposal?

Tony Blair: No, I do not support it. Let me explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why. Let me also try and explain why we have to legislate now. The present law, as he knows, is that people can be detained in prison without trial. There was the House of Lords judgment a short time ago, which effectively said that that was incompatible with human rights and that the legislation should not be in place.
	On 14 March the renewal of that legislation comes up. That is why we must act now. It is not that we are rushing the Bill through without due cause. It is because on 14 March we will be faced with a situation where we have no legislation in place, or we have to put back in place detention without trial, in defiance of the House of Lords judgment.
	There are two sorts of orders that we are introducing. One is a control order, which effectively means that someone could be detained up to 24 hours in their own home. That is what is called a derogating control order, because it means there would be a derogation from our human rights obligations. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that will effectively be subject to a sunset clause, because if we introduce it, and we will introduce it only if there is another vote of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, my understanding is that it becomes annually reviewable and renewable. In other words, that part of the Bill is already subject to a sunset clause.
	Non-derogating orders are measures short of something that requires us to derogate from human rights legislation, such as access to certain people being restricted, or certain areas being restricted, or restrictions on mobile phone or internet use. The police and security services tell us they need these powers in order to be able to deal with the terrorist threat that we face. Those are, as I understand it again, to be subject to an appeal to a court within 14 days. There will also be a three-monthly report on the use of those powers by an eminent and independent person. I think those are sufficient safeguards for the civil liberties of the subject, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his position on the matter and to allow us to present these proposals in a unified way.

Michael Howard: It would, indeed, be highly desirable if we could arrive at a consensus on these issues. That is why we have put forward a number of proposals, of which the sunset clause is only the latest. The Prime Minister must be aware that there is concern in all parts of the House, which is why more than 60 Labour Members of Parliament voted with me on Monday night. Would it not be far better if the whole of the legislation were made subject to a sunset clause provision, so that Parliament had the opportunity to consider it all in a proper way, instead of its being rushed through the House and ramrodded through, as is currently happening?

Tony Blair: I have already explained the position in respect of derogating control orders, which will effectively be subject to a sunset clause because they have to be renewed each year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks whether it would not be better if the other powers were subject to debate. There will, of course, be the continual reports by the independent person charged with assessing the way these control orders are used, and they can and will be debated by the House.
	Since 11 September, more than 700 people have been arrested for various terrorist offences. That is a significant number of people, some of whomI am not saying all of them, by any meanswould, if they could, engage in serious terrorist activity that would cause severe loss of life in this country. The police and the security services tell us that they want these powers. It would frankly be bizarre if I took up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion not to have these powers but instead to re-legislate detention without trial in prison. That would be a very odd thing to do. We have the powers. They were recommended by the Newton committee and by the police and security services, and I do not believe that they are an affront to civil liberties. On the contrary, I believe that they are a proper balance between the civil liberties of the subject and the necessary national security of this country, which I will not put at risk.

Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Warrington hospital continues to receive investment, such as the 6 million for the accident and emergency unit, which is now in operation, and the 3 million for intensive care facilities, which has been agreed, so that my constituents continue to get a quality health service, free at the point of need?

Tony Blair: The investment that is going into my hon. Friend's constituency is going into constituencies up and down the country, and that is why it is so wrong and unfair for Conservative Members to try to denigrate what is happening in our health service today. Indeed, the recent reports on accident and emergency treatment and on care for cancer patients show just how much progress has been made. None of that is to say that things do not go wrong in our health service. Of course they do; that is part of any health care system in the world. But we can be proud of the fact that our NHS is on the way back.

Hugh Robertson: Last week, the Government introduced a new licensing regime for all sports and community clubs across the country. Commenting on the new fees involved, the chairman of the Central Council of Physical Recreation said that
	the effect is likely to drive sports clubs out of business. It is completely unacceptable to devastate the British sporting landscape so that the Government can appear tough on crime.
	Given that the Government made a number of commitments to the contrary during the passage of the legislation, why have they said one thing and done another?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I will have to look into the particular point that the hon. Gentleman makes, because I doubt very much that our intention is to devastate sports clubs or sporting facilities throughout the country. I might point out that this Government are putting more money into our sports facilities, with specialist sports schools, and encouraging people to take up sport. I do not quite understand the link with crime, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on the matter, as I suspect that the facts may be rather different from those that he has given.

Hugh Bayley: Since Labour brought in the minimum wage against fierce opposition from the economic wizards on the Opposition Front Benches who claimed that it would cost jobs, the number of people employed in my constituency has increased by 10,000. I am pleased that the Labour Government continue to increase the minimum wage by more than inflation, but there are still some peoplehome workers, cockle pickers and other exploited and sweated workerswho do not get the minimum wage. Will the Government organise a major campaign to tell people about their rights at work and how to claim them?

Tony Blair: We certainly will do that. It is important that we ensure that people are aware of their rights under the minimum wage legislation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that literally hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from the introduction of the minimum wage. The uprating is extremely welcome. It shows that we can combine a strong high-employment economy with social justice and fairness. I think that it was somebody sitting not too far away from me who described the minimum wage as extreme, dangerous and absurd, and said that it would cost 2 million jobs. We introduced the minimum wage and we got 2 million extra jobs.

Mark Francois: In several parts of my constituency of Rayleigh, NHS dentistry has effectively ceased to exist. Several years ago, the Prime Minister promised that everyone would have access to an NHS dentist. Is that not another example of why we can no longer believe a word that he says?

Tony Blair: As the hon. Gentleman should know, we are introducing more dentists to the country and significantly increasing training places for dentists. If he were to talk to dentists in his constituency, they would point out to him that the previous Government introduced the disastrous contract for dentists and cut training places. Perhaps he should point out to them that when this House voted on extra money for NHS dentistry, he and his party voted against it.

Andrew Dismore: Last Monday, yet another safer neighbourhood team was set up in Edgware in my constituency, and it will soon be followed by teams in west Hendon and Hendon central. It will build on the success of the teams in Colindale and Burnt Oak, where the police have reduced antisocial crime by one third. Is it not a good example of how we are making great efforts to increase police numbers in my constituency and throughout London?

Tony Blair: What is happening in my hon. Friend's constituency is also happening in many London constituencies and elsewhere. We have record numbers of police, who are being supplemented by community support officers. However, many communities still need a neighbourhood policing team, which is why it is important that we continue to expand the numbers of CSOs and police officers, who can use the new legislation to police our local communities more effectively. We will continue to increase the Home Office budget, but the Conservative party has pledged to freeze it, which would cut the numbers of police and CSOs.

BBC

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of the BBC. I will set out for the House the background to the current review of the BBC's royal charter and our proposals on its funding, governance and purposes. Those proposals are set out in a Green Paper, A strong BBC, independent of government, which is published today.
	Alongside the NHS, the BBC is one of the two great institutions of British national life. For more than 80 years, it has sought to represent the highest standards in broadcasting. Its archives are a record of our national collective memory, from broadcasts of the coronation and the 1966 World cup to Dixon of Dock Green and The Office.
	Since the corporation's foundation, its royal charter has been reviewed by the Government roughly every 10 years, the last occasion being in 1996. Like its predecessors, this review examines the corporation's scale and scope, and its funding and governance. It is, however, unique in the level of public consultation, and in tackling perhaps the greatest challenge the BBC has ever facedthe changes in TV technology that will soon result in a wholly digital Britain.
	Like any public institution, the BBC must adapt if is to serve its audiences and keep pace with change, but its values, its global reach, its standards and its editorial independence must be preserved and strengthened, for that is what the British people want.
	The results of our public consultation and research are very clear. Overwhelmingly, people like and trust the BBC: they understand and support the principles of public service broadcasting; they want the BBC to have scale; they want the BBC to set the highest standards; they want the BBC to be independent of Government, Parliament and any commercial influence; and they want the BBC to listen.
	But they also have significant criticismsfor example, that the BBC is not responsive enough to their interests, and that there has been a decline in quality, particularly in television, with a tendency towards copycat programming at the expense of real innovation. Some people worry about the value for money of the licence feeparticularly those who want but cannot get Freeviewand some of the BBC's commercial competitors believe that it has too much freedom to expand into new markets and stifle competition.
	We have to find a balance between meeting those concerns while ensuring that public service broadcasting leaves a footprint in every mediuma guarantee of quality, impartiality and innovation. That balance is harder to strike as the media change. In 1988 Britain had four TV channels; today there are more than 400. In a few years' time, we will become a fully digital nation when the switchover from analogue to digital TV is made. As technology changes, so do the public's expectations. The challenges facing the BBC are enormous, and it plays a leading role in guiding the nation through this period of change. To do so, it needs certainty about its future. Therefore, after closely considering the alternative recommendations of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, we have decided that the BBC's charter should be renewed for a further 10 years.
	I now turn to the question of funding. The review looked at the different options for funding the BBC and consulted the public. Perhaps surprisingly, the licence fee retains a high degree of public support. Although it is not perfect, we believe that it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC, so it will continue throughout the next charter. In the coming months, we will decide on the right level for the fee after 2007, but beyond that we have to take account of the rapid advance in technology and media consumption. During the life of the next charter we will review the case for alternative funding models, particularly subscription, making a contribution after 2016. We will also review the risk to plurality in public service broadcasting, encompassing Channel 4's longer-term position, and whether any public funding, including licence fee income, should be distributed more widely beyond the BBC in order to sustain pluralityand if so, how any such distribution might take place.
	The old definition of the BBC's purposes as to educate, inform and entertain still holds true, but is no longer enough, by itself, in a world of increasing choice. We have therefore identified five new purposes for the BBC, which I set out in the Green Paper. In addition, the BBC will play a leading role in the process of switching Britain from analogue to digital television. It will be at the forefront of public information campaigns; it will help to manage Switchco, the organisation that will co-ordinate the technical process, and it will help to establish and fund schemes that will help the most vulnerable consumers. Hon. Members will know from their own postbags that there is disquiet in many households that are expected to pay the fee when they cannot at the moment receive the full range of BBC services. That is why we think it important that the BBC should help to drive the switchover process.
	I should now like to move on to governance, where we will introduce radical changea BBC-specific model of governance that gives expression to the values on which the BBC is built. There is widespread consensus that the current model of governance is unsustainable. The governors' dual role as cheerleader and regulator does not sit easily in a public organisation of the size and complexity of the BBC; it lacks clarity and accountability. In the Green Paper we set out a new model that reflects the public value approach of the current BBC model but also draws significantly on Lord Burns' work. The BBC governors, with their dual role of managing the BBC but also holding it to account, will be replaced by two bodies, each with a clearly defined role.
	A BBC trust will be the custodian of the BBC's purposes, the licence fee and the public interest. An executive board will be accountable to the trust for the delivery of the BBC's services. The functions of the two bodies will be clearly defined, enabling the trust to judge the management's performance clearly and authoritatively. The trust will have high-level powers of approval over BBC budgets and strategy. It will have the tools to hold the BBC to account, issuing new service licences for each BBC service and applying a public value test to proposals for new services. Michael Grade, whose current appointment as chairman of the BBC continues until 2008, will be the first chairman of the trust.
	The trust will represent the licence fee payer. Ways of doing that will be developed further between the Green Paper and the White Paper, but they might include webcasting trust meetings, publishing audience research or electing local representative councils. Day-to-day management will be carried out by the executive board, which will be strengthened by a significant minority of non-executive members, and whose chair will be appointed by the trust.
	In the past months, we have examined closely the changes that Michael Grade has made. We have also studied the model proposed by Lord Burns for an external public service broadcasting commission. Our trust model builds in the strongest elements of the BBC's proposals, which include the establishment of a separate governance unit, the introduction of service licences and the application of public value tests to both new services and any major changes to existing ones.
	The BBC's proposals are undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but as they stand, they fall short of the accountability test because they do not resolve the confusion of the governors' dual role and depend too much on behavioural rather than structural change. The setting up of a BBC trust also incorporates the key recommendation from Lord Burns that there should be clear separation of different responsibilities, to avoid confusion or capture.
	However, we believe that the Burns proposals for a unitary BBC board with a Government-appointed chair, and an external PSB commission also with a Government-appointed chair, would fail to provide sufficient authority, clarity or distance from Government. Our proposal ensures that there will be only one clear sovereign body and only one Government-appointed chair. That will make the trust a powerful advocate for the public interest, able to safeguard the BBC's independence.
	Strong does not mean over-mighty, and we must ensure that the BBC deals fairly with the wider market. The BBC's competitors have become increasingly concerned about the impact of a publicly funded BBC on their services. Successive Governments have allowed the BBC to be, in effect, a desirable market intervention. However, we also need it to be constrained when its interests collide with the commercial sector and threaten the choice and quality of programming from other broadcasters. It should not play copycat or chase ratings for ratings' sake.
	We want the corporation to maximise its income from commercial services, but we also want to see a clear link between those services and its public purposes. To achieve that, the BBC will be subject to tough new internal and external processes. Ofcom will be given powers to conduct market impact assessments for proposed new services. It will retain full Competition Act 1998 powers in relation to the BBC and, in addition, we will consider giving it a new power of approval over the BBC's internal code on fair trading.
	Another subject of debate is the BBC's use of independent productions and the balance between in-house and externally commissioned programmes. I want to ensure that the licence fee truly becomes venture capital for creativity. Twenty-five per cent. of the BBC's television productions already have to be commissioned from the independent sector.
	I believe that there is scope to go further, and we will consider a range of options for reform in that area, including the BBC's proposal for a new window of creative competition and, alternatively, increases in the existing quotas. Either way, I expect substantial progress in that area. The BBC has exclusive access to the licence fee, and in return we want that used to encourage independent production as well as in-house production.
	For radio, the BBC has adopted a voluntary 10 per cent. quota, and we will consult on whether that is sufficient.
	To reflect the whole United Kingdom and its different and diverse communities, the BBC also needs to make sure that a significant slice of production takes place outside London. It needs to provide a specific range of services for the UK's nations and regions. People should see the full diversity of the UK and their local communities reflected in mainstream as well as regional programming.
	I am immensely grateful to Terry Burns and his panel, to Michael Grade and the BBC and to Ofcom. Most of all, though, I am grateful to the members of the public who, in their thousands, made their voices heard. We have endeavoured to take the best of what they told us.
	In a changing world, values still endure. In a changing world, trust becomes ever more important in people's lives. In our changing world, the Government will secure a BBC that belongs to its licence fee payers and embodies the values that the British people want. That means a BBC that promotes citizenship and builds our civil society; that promotes education and learning; that   is dedicated to creativity and cultural excellence; that celebrates our nations, regions and communities; that brings the world to the UK and the UK to the world; and that is strong, independent and securely at the heart of British broadcasting for 10 more years.
	On that basis, I commend the statement and the Green Paper to the House.

John Whittingdale: I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me sight of her statement in advance. In many areas the direction set out for the BBC is the right one, but in almost every case the statement does not go far enough. Instead, a number of largely cosmetic changes are proposed to the structure and oversight of the BBC. It appears that, once again, the BBC has successfully fought off all proposals for substantial or immediate change.
	We welcome the Secretary of State's recognition of the fact that the broadcasting environment is in the middle of a period of extremely rapid change. Every day more households switch to digital, gaining access to tens, if not hundreds, more channels. Many are choosing to pay more for what they want to watch. If the BBC is to continue to receive public subsidy, it must provide programming that is different and in the public interest. It must have even greater regard to its public duty to set the highest standards for the quality of its programmes, its regard for public feeling and its treatment of commercial rivals and suppliers.
	The clear remit for individual BBC services and the stronger public service obligation to which the Secretary of State referred are badly needed, but they will make a difference only if they are rigorously enforced. As we have seen with the independent production quota, the BBC has been happy to pay lip service to the obligations placed upon it until faced with an external regulator with the power to impose real sanctions if it fails to comply. For that reason, almost every independent commentator has recommended the establishment of an external regulator, separate from the BBC.
	The Secretary of State has described the existing arrangement as unsustainable. The chairman of the BBC has already gone some way to distance the governors from the management. Today she has announced that the board of governors is to be replaced by independent trustees, but that is a long way short of the external regulator that we, and others, believe to be necessary. What is the difference between the independent trustees whom the Secretary of State intends to appoint and the new arrangements for a more independent board of governors that are already being put in place by the chairman of the BBC? Is it not the case that the trustees will still be part of the BBC and will not provide the external supervision that would be provided by a public service broadcasting commission fully independent of the BBC, as was recommended to her by Lord Burns?
	The Government have already given Ofcom responsibility for adjudicating on complaints about harm and offence caused by programmes, including those broadcast by the BBC. Why will the Secretary of State not accept that Ofcom should have equal powers to adjudicate on complaints about the BBC's accuracy and impartiality, as it does for other broadcasters? She has referred to the large number of complaints from the commercial sector about abuses by the BBC of its dominant position. She went on to say that she would consider allowing Ofcom to adjudicate on complaints about the BBC's unfair competitive practices. That is a welcome step forward, but why does she need to consider it? Why can she not say today that Ofcom will take over that responsibility, so that we no longer have the existing position whereby the BBC promises to examine such complaints and then, once a decent interval of time has passed, rejects them?
	Why has the Secretary of State again rejected the powerful recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that the BBC's spending be subject to the full independent scrutiny of the National Audit Office? The BBC receives about 2.8 billion of public money, yet it is still unwilling to open its books fully to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and through him to Parliament. If the Secretary of State really wants to improve the transparency and accountability of the BBC, she should make that change straight away.
	Let me now turn to the funding of the BBC. As the Secretary of State started by saying that she regarded it as improbable, if not inconceivable, that there should be a change to the licence fee, it must have come as something of a shock to her to receive Lord Burns' report, which states that sustaining the licence fee will become increasingly difficult. Her acceptance of that principle is a welcome change, but her agreement to a continuation of the licence fee for another 10 years means that it is essentially business as usual.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that if a move towards subscription were to occur, it would require households to have access to conditional technology? What do the Government intend to do to encourage that? Given the pace at which change is happening, why is she refusing to contemplate any change to the licence fee system until 2017 at the earliest? In the past seven years the licence fee has gone up by 30 per cent. in real terms. Can she at least guarantee that it will not increase in future by more than inflation?
	Why have the Government also rejected for at least 10 years the recommendation of Lord Burns' panelsupported, we understand, by Lord Birtthat licence fee money should be made available to other broadcasters for public service programming? Does she accept the analysis of Ofcom that over time, competitive pressures will continue to reduce the amount of public service broadcasting on commercial channels? If she does accept that analysis, what does she propose to do about it?
	We agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said in her statement, but having identified the priorities and challenges for the BBC, the Government have shied away from addressing them. We share their wish to see a strong BBC producing high-quality public service programmes, but we also believe that the need for change should be addressed now, and that the charter should be looked at again in five years' time. Instead, the Government appear content merely to tinker at the edges of the existing structure while essentially allowing the BBC to continue for another 10 years with business as usual.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is deeply unsatisfactory that we have

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Father of the House knows that points of order can be taken only

Tam Dalyell: We have not had a copy of the statement.

Mr. Speaker: It is no fault of any Official of the House that the statement has not been circulated. The Vote Office received the statement only recently. [Interruption.] Order. I am not here to say whose fault that is; I am explaining that it is not the fault of any Officer of the House.

Tessa Jowell: On that specific point, I have just been passed a note saying that the statement had not been circulated before I got to my feet, and I apologise to the House for that. Obviously, I shall supply you, Mr. Speaker, with information about why that happened.
	A number of the points made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) are interconnected, but let me start with the fact that there is a profound difference between the Opposition's view of the future of public service broadcasting and the view on the Labour Benches of the Government's position. The Government see public service broadcasting as providing a bedrock built on universal access and safeguarded by a universal licence feea licence fee that is more popular and sustainable, despite its regressive nature, than any of us might have expected at the beginning of this process. I believe that the proposals that I have set before the House today respond very directly to the public opinion expressed by thousands and thousands of people during the process of consultation.
	What I have not done is rule out alternative forms of funding in the future. Indeed, in response to the hon. Gentleman's point, I recognise the profound changes that the switch to digital will bring. That is why, at about the time of switchover, we will conduct a review of alternative forms of funding for the BBC and public service broadcasting more generally. In advance of a new charterin other words, before 2016, in about 2010 or 2012in the light of the evidence at the time, we will also look at the case for some of the licence fee income being used to ensure choice and plurality for other public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4 and so forth. Those are decisions for five or six years' time; they are not decisions for now, but I have made it clear that they will be for consideration within the next charter period.
	On compliance with the requirements that the trust will set for the BBC, the BBC trust will be able to impose very tough penalties and sanctions in the light of failure of any individual part of the BBC to comply with the service licence. Such sanctions might include moving money from one channel to another; it will be for the trust to dispose of such matters.
	On the profound difference between the overhaul of the BBC's governance that we have set out today and the present situationI do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been listening that closely to what I had to say about thisthe separation of the unsustainable dual present function, whereby the governors both regulate the BBC and oversee its management, will end. We will have a BBC trust that is responsible for the oversight of the BBC and for its governance.
	I believe that the proposals that I have set out today meet the issues raised by the public in the course of consultation. They are not all entirely acceptable to the BBC, but that is not the point. I believe that the BBC will rise to the challenge that we have presented to it today, and that it will do so in the interests of the long tradition of public service broadcasting that it has led.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has announced proposed changes in the governance of the BBC that take account of the proposals of the Select Committee, and we appreciate that. It is also important to make the point that, after the mess that they inherited, Mr. Michael Grade and Mr. Mark Thompson deserve every encouragement in the new start that they are trying to provide for the BBC. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend produces her further proposals following the Green Paper, she will take into account the fact that her governance proposals need further clarification, and that she will be working on that.
	With the Government, the Select Committee accepted, with whatever reluctance, that the only viable form of funding an independent public service BBC was the licence fee, and we do not quarrel with my right hon. Friend's proposal in that regard. While millions of people will accept, reluctantly or otherwise, that they are paying a licence fee for the BBC to continue, does she accept that they would be less happy with any possibility that the licence fee could be a kitty to be raided for other public service broadcasting organisations? It is very important that that should be taken into account.
	Furthermore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will impress on the BBC the disquiet that is felt in many quarters at the nasty, menacing advertising campaign mounted by the television licensing authority to scare people in a way that is, in my view, incompatible with a democratic society.
	My right hon. Friend has issued a Green Paper, and she will obviously be issuing firmer proposals in due course. She pointed out in her statement the difference between the four channels that we had 10 years ago and the 400 that we have now. Will she take into account in her final proposals the fact that the growth will be almost exponential by the end of 2016?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution and I pay tribute to his Select Committee's recent report on the BBC, the Government's response to which I have published today. The report was timely because it enabled us to take serious account of it as we drew up the proposals in the Green Paper.
	I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's cautionary note in relation to the public response to any other uses of the licence fee beyond the BBC. That is why I have signalled the intention of the review today, well ahead of time, and why there will obviously have to be extensive consultation and discussion in the light of the circumstances at the time on how such a provision might be applied.
	I am well aware of my right hon. Friend's disquiet about what he has previously described as the aggressive nature of the advertising campaign for the collection of the licence fee. In the Green Paper, we have undertaken to review a number of outstanding issues in relation to licence fee collection, which, at the moment, costs about 150 million a yeara substantial amount. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept those reassurances, and I look forward to the Select Committee contributing further to this debate.

Don Foster: May I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement? For the past 80 years, the BBC has been a pre-eminent public service broadcaster. It has made a major contribution to our democracy, our culture and our standing in the world. With the world of broadcasting changing so rapidly, it is vital for the new charter to ensure that the BBC is strong, independent, and well and securely funded, so that it remains the best in the world and the envy of the world.
	We very much welcome the proposals in the Green Paper, which, in the main, we support. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, while she supports the continuation of the licence fee as the means of funding the BBC for the next 10 years, she has rejected outright the calls from John Birt and others to use some of the licence fee income to support other public service broadcasters during that period? Will she also confirm that digital switchover is a Government policy, and that she is not therefore expecting the BBC to take overall responsibility for it? We accept that the BBC should take a lead role in building and funding a digital Britain, but will the Secretary of State tell us the limits on the expenditure that the BBC would be expected to make in that regard? Surely she does not expect it to sign a blank cheque for all the switchover costs.
	On governance, we agree that the current conflict whereby the governors are expected to be flag wavers for the BBC as well as its regulators simply cannot continue. We would have preferred to see the establishment of a new, tough, independent public service broadcasting regulator for all the public service broadcasters, but the proposal for the trust is a move in the right direction. However, given that the trust will have strategic oversight of major BBC decisions and a role in overseeing whether it fulfils its public service purpose, will there not still be a conflict of interest? Will people not see the trustees as still being part of the BBC, rather than separate from it? Are the proposals on governance firm Government policy or merely a starting point for further debate?
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what role there will be on the new trust for representatives from the nations and regions? Does she agree that, whoever serves on the trust, it would be better if appointments to it were made by a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, rather than simply by her or her successors?
	On programming, will the Secretary of State ensure that there will be a requirement on the BBC to increase its local and regional programming, rather than merely to maintain it?
	Overall, we welcome the proposals in the Green Paper, which contains most of the provisions that we seek, to ensure that the BBC is strong, independent, and well and securely funded.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I have obviously confirmed the continuation of the licence fee throughout the next charter review period, but I have signalled that there will be two specific reviews. He made an observation about John Birt. As director-general of the BBC, he was a passionate advocate for the accountability of the BBC and the licence fee, and I am at one with him on his views on those matters.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that I have made two written statements to update the House on digital switchover. The process of switchover is being led by broadcasters and the industry, supported by the Government. The licence fee settlement that will expire in 2007 took account of the BBC's role in promoting digital television and new digital services. We expect the negotiation of the new licence fee also to take account of the BBC's contribution to the costs of digital switchover.
	On the status of the proposal for the trust, it is our intention that it should be the new form of governance for the BBC. It is important that the BBC should not be left in limbo for many months, and that it should be able to proceed to implement the new arrangements. How the membership of the trust is selected will obviously be a matter for discussion, but the working assumption is that the appointments will be made by the Crown. On the hon. Gentleman's final point on regional programming, the Government strongly believe in the BBC's right and proper role in the development of regional broadcasting, as I set out in my statement.

John McDonnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement today. I congratulate her on rejecting Lord Burns' wilder dogma, on retaining the licence fee and on the new structure of governance. Will she, however, clarify the time scale for the implementation of her proposals? There is a sense of urgency involved, and the new trust should be established quickly. If it is to have a role in maintaining quality, it should look now at the BBC's budget proposals, which include 3,000 job cuts, extensive privatisation and the slashing of 15 per cent. off budgets. The trust needs to be put in place as rapidly as possible to address those critical budgetary issues.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The proposals that I set out are intended to take effect as part of the new charter, which will come into force on 1 January 2007, but the BBC, through its internal conclusions, is moving to changes in the governance structure. It will be a matter for discussion with the BBC as to whether it is to establish some form of shadow trust arrangement in advance of the new charter and whether that will have properly established constitutional status at that time.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Secretary of State respond on the issue of funding? I note that she said in her statement that the licence fee remains the fairest way to fund the BBC, and I know that she wants to maintain the highest standards of quality of broadcasting. That view, I presume, would be shared by every Member of the House.
	On the issue of the fairness of funding, the Secretary of State must be aware that, across parts of the UK, there are very high rates of evasionnon-payment of the licence fee. Through a series of parliamentary questions, I have been endeavouring to get her Department to establish the evasion in certain parts of Northern Ireland, so far without success. Surely fairness in funding can be achieved only when the 90 per cent. who pay can see action being taken against those who do not. In parts of Northern Ireland, evasion rates are very high. Surely she should examine those rates, elaborate on where they occur and put the detection vans in those places to uphold the law and ensure that the fee is paid. If it is not paid, fines should be.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that money lost in unpaid licence fee is money lost to programming. It is therefore a responsibility of the BBC, through its agencies, to ensure that the licence fee is collected.

Tam Dalyell: For a politician who wants to get a message over as opposed to winning brownie points with his constituents and others, steam radio is of course a matter of greater importance. The Secretary of State says that, for radio, the BBC has adopted a voluntary 10 per cent. quota and that the Government will consult on whether that is sufficient. To some of us, at first sight, it is grossly inefficient. In those consultations, I hope she will look after radio in general, and World Service radio in particular. What is the position of World Service radio?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course we will consider the proposed 10 per cent. quota. It is also worth underlining that Radio 4 is one of the largest commissioners in the world of new writing for radio and that Radio 3 is the largest classical music commissioner in the world. The Green Paper sets out clearly the continuing support for the World Service and the challenges that face it: questions about the number of languages in which it is broadcast and about the migration from radio to television, as well as the role of BBC World. No one who travels the world underestimates the importance of the BBC World Service, and we are determined that it will continue to be strong.

Edward Leigh: Is it not a fact that the World Service has been subject to parliamentary scrutiny for years without any threat to editorial independence? Why was there no mention in the Secretary of State's statement of parliamentary scrutiny of the rest of the BBC through the National Audit Office? Why did she not respond to the points made on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)? Is it not true that the BBC has consistently resisted parliamentary scrutiny of nearly 3 billion of public spending? Are not the voluntary arrangements working quite adequately? Why should the Comptroller and Auditor General, alone for the BBC, have to ask permission to investigate any matter? Will the Secretary of State open the matter up in the charter review?

Tessa Jowell: I realise that I did not deal with that point following the remarks made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. I apologise for that and welcome the opportunity to deal with it now. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is well aware, new arrangements have been established on the basis of agreement between the BBC and the NAO. The right and proper way to proceed is to judge how well those new arrangements are working, but to keep the question open during the remaining stages of charter review. However, there are good processes, which, as I understand it from the BBC's perspective and the NAO's perspective, are satisfactory. The question whether we go further during this charter period is still one for debate.

David Winnick: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's defence of the BBC, is she aware that it would be unacceptable to many of us for any slice of the BBC licence fee to go to other bodies, which in practice could mean some of the BBC's commercial competitors? Without wishing to be anything other than polite to all concerned, it would be best if Lord Birt kept away as much as possible from interference of any kind with the BBC. His record as director-general is not quite what she told the House.

Tessa Jowell: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not necessarily believe all the stories he reads in the newspapers. What would unite this side of the House is a commitment to ensuring that not just the BBC, but public service broadcasting in this country, which is an important part of our broader broadcasting tradition, remains strong. That is why I have put on the record today the need in prospect to review the security of public service broadcasting before the end of this charter review period, hence the debate for a later day on whether some licence fee money needs to be diverted to maintain the strength of public service broadcasting.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State rightly said that the BBC needs to provide a range of specific services for the UK's nations. What new powers will BBC Scotland and BBC Wales have to make their own decisions on all news priorities and programming? Will there be specific BBC trusts for Scotland and for Wales? She talks about improving BBC programmes and news and current affairs, but how does she imagine that is possible when budgets are being slashed and 3,000 jobs are about to go?

Tessa Jowell: Let me deal with the last point first. Those are matters for the BBC; they are not matters in which Ministers should interfere. The Government set the terms of the charter and the BBC has to meet those terms. Secondly, there will not be separate trusts for Scotland and for Wales, but we would expect the membership of the new BBC trust to take account of the nations and regions in the ways that I have described.

Alan Keen: From all the information we receive, it is clear that the public regard the licence fee as excellent value for money. It is also clear that the public trust the BBC more than politicians, which is obviously not an over-generous compliment to the BBC. The BBC is successful, so why do people fall over themselves to restrict its output against the commercial sector? I say that as someone who is happy to pay Sky five times as much as I pay the BBC so as to receive specialist sports and films. Why try to restrict one of the most successful organisations in the country?

Tessa Jowell: Maintaining public confidence and support for the licence fee relies on people believing that they are getting value for money. I referred to the concern, represented by about 500 letters a month to my Department, expressed by people who are not yet able to get Freeview, although they pay the licence fee. Hence the importance of the momentum behind the move to digital switchover.
	My hon. Friend has made an important point. This country has a mixed economy of broadcasting, but the bedrock of that mixed economy is universal access, free to air, to the BBC. That leaves people free to make choices about further services to which they may wish to subscribe, but in the context of that universal entitlementsubject to payment of the licence feeand it should continue.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State just acknowledged that her Department receives more than 500 letters a month from people complaining that they cannot get Freeview. Can she tell me what other licence fee involves charging people for something that they cannot get? It really is unacceptable. Many of my constituents are very angry that they cannot get Freeview, but are paying for it.

Tessa Jowell: It is only a matter of time. Opposition Members may grimace, but a project as complex as digital switchover cannot be completed overnight. The transmitters must be upgraded, and equipment must be replaced. We must ensurewhile being consistent with the principle of universal accessthat no one is left behind, and that we do not have a population of elderly and vulnerable people who are shut out from the benefits of digital television. It is a clear aim of Government policy that the switchover should be led by broadcasters and the industry, with Government support, and that that should take place between 2008 and 2012.

Tony Wright: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeing off all the voicesheavily represented on the Conservative Benchesthat wanted her to begin the process of weakening and dismantling the BBC. Is it not the case that the more our society fragments, the more we need the voice of a common culture? Is it not the case that the more the rest of the media engage in a race to the bottom, the more we need the BBC to lead the race in the opposite direction?
	My right hon. Friend has issued a quality challenge to the BBC today for the next 10 years. Is it not the BBC's job to rise to that challenge?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. It underlines the profound difference between our view of the BBC and public service broadcasting, serving the people of this country, and that of the Opposition.

Ian Taylor: The Secretary of State has made an outrageous comment. It is because people like me believe that public service broadcasting and the institution of the BBC are important that we would have begun innovative thinking now, rather than deferring it. Does the Secretary of State realise that it is not attacking the BBC to say that in the real world people may not still be watching television on television sets within the time scale that she has set? We shall be able to download it on telephones; we shall have it on our mobile systems.
	This is a transforming technology, and that transformation is happening now. There is no point in promoting citizenship on the BBC if no one watches the BBC. That is public service broadcasting set aside for the elite, not the people. It is because we want the contribution of public service broadcasting, and the BBC's traditional programming, to continue that I despair about the Secretary of State's failure to tackle those issues now. The change is happening now, and people are changing their viewing habits now.

Tessa Jowell: That is precisely why the sixth of the BBC's public purposes is to deal with the digital challenge. It is why my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), negotiated an above-inflation-rate increase for the BBC, so that it would be competent and funded to meet the challenges. There is absolutely no disagreement between us on that, however the hon. Gentleman may try to represent the facts.

Anne Begg: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the Green Paper, which I look forward to reading in due course.
	I support the continuation of the licence fee. Those who complain about paying itwe have heard some of them this afternoontend to take the narrow view that the BBC provides only the two mainstream analogue terrestrial channels, forgetting the raft of radio programmes, including the regional opt-out. When I am in London, I listen to BBC Aberdeen broadcasts on the computer. The BBC provides a wide range of services, and I think that the best way of preserving its uniqueness and its standing in the world is to ensure that it continues to be funded through the licence fee.
	I also wonder

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that the hon. Lady may want to apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the important points that she has made, with which I agree.

Alistair Carmichael: If we are not to have a separate trust for BBC ScotlandI do not quibble about that at this stageit will be important for the geographical and cultural diversity of the station to be reflected not just in the composition of the trust but in its purposes. This is not just about national and regional representation; it is about local provision. In my constituency we have Radio Orkney and Radio Shetland, which are greatly valued by local people because they broadcast not just to local communities, but about our communities to the rest of the country. Can the Secretary of State assure me that high quality local output will not be lost in a concentration of power among a small number of people?

Tessa Jowell: There is absolutely no intention that that should happen, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point that underlines the increasing local enthusiasm for very local radio and television news. This is part of the challenge not just to the BBC but to other public service broadcasters in the reassessment of the role of regional television and radio programmes.

Paul Flynn: The supreme achievement of the BBC in Waleswhich has itself been a magnificent achievement for the last 80 yearsis its work on the use and development of one of the most ancient surviving European languages. That is partly due to the existence of the Broadcasting Council for Wales, whose chairperson has always been a member of the BBC's board of governors. Will the new set-up, with the executive and the trust, be accompanied by a guarantee of Welsh representation, and may we have an assurance that the move from analogue to digital will involve no diminution of the content and availability of broadcasting in the Welsh language?

Tessa Jowell: I strongly believe that the BBC has an important role to play in preserving what might be seen as minority languages such as Welsh and Gaelic, on a UK-wide basis. I hope that the BBC will discharge that responsibility. I also hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give any specific undertakings at this stage about the membership of the trust. I can only tell him that I hear what he says about the importance of Welsh interests being recognised at every level of the BBC.

BILL PRESENTED

Equality

Ms Secretary Hewitt, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Johnson, Secretary Ruth Kelly, Jacqui Smith, Mr. David Lammy and Fiona Mactaggart, presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights; to dissolve the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission, to make provision about discrimination on grounds of religion or belief; to impose duties relating to sex discrimination on persons performing public functions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 72].

Points of Order

Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I can recall, this is the first time I have ever raised a point of order in the House. I am doing so now not because I shall be retiring before the general election, but to record the fact that during Prime Minister's Question Time the Leader of the Oppositionwhose office I have informed of thisinadvertently gave a misleading impression of what happened during Monday evening's vote. He said that I, along with 61 other Labour Members, had gone into the Lobby with him. The truth is that I had tabled amendment No. 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and it was the Leader of the Opposition who went into the Lobby with Labour Members.

Mr. Speaker: The matter is on the record, and I will not be drawn into it.

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the explanatory notes relating to the draft Company Directors Disqualification (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which we debated in a Committee yesterday. I shall not go through the detail of the actual debate, but it subsequently occurred to me that in fact the notes were rather superficial. Indeed, had I had a deeper understanding then, and had the notes been more substantive, that might have altered the contribution that I and others made. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that when highly complex issues are to be debatedspecifically in the special circumstances relating to the governance of Northern Irelandofficials be requested to provide comprehensive notes on the consequences of specific orders, so that we can have a more informed debate?

Mr. Speaker: I will look into this matter and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to shorten the time taken up by Front-Bench exchanges during statements? This afternoon's opening statement and the Front-Bench reply took 28 minutes, which meant that the some 25 Back Benchers who wanted to get in, including methe headquarters of BBC Wales is in my constituency and I wanted to refer to itwere unable to do so.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point of order; if I do so, the hon. Gentleman might not need to take it further.
	During points of order, a Member sometimes comes up with a gem that allows me to put it on the record that I am displeased with the fact that Front-Bench statements are exceeding the 10 minutes recommended by the Modernisation Committee. I say with the greatest respect to Secretaries of State that they are slipping into their old habit of forgetting that Back Benchers are also entitled to have their say. Today's statement lasted 13 minutes, and as a result the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman took longer over his response; and so it goes on. So I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). I want more Back Benchers to be able to be called, and it saddens me that I have to leave some uncalled.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to pursue it. I want to put it on the record that today's statement lasted less than an hour, and that it was 10 minutes past 1 before the three Front Benchers had concluded. Not many Back Benchers were in fact standing today. Will you look into this matter and see what can be done in future?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, and of course the hon. Gentleman will remember that I was very sharp off the mark in leaving the statement because today is an Opposition Supply day, and I want to ensure that it gets a full airing.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My complaint is not that a statement was too long but that there has been no statement at all about the announcement that Nottingham East Midlands airport is to be allowed additional flight paths over my constituency at night, which will cause huge disturbance and blight. Will you ask whether a statement has been requested of you by the Secretary of State

Gerry Sutcliffe: Have an Adjournment debate.

Edward Garnier: I have had one of those, and the Minister's response was wholly inadequate. I want the Secretary of State here to answer to the House for this decision, which has been taken undemocratically and without the opportunity for Labour and Conservative Members representing Leicestershire to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker: I am not encouraging thisfar from itbut Members can also apply for an urgent question. But that does not mean to say that I will agree to it.

BILLS PRESENTED

Fisheries Jurisdiction

Mr. Alex Salmond, supported by Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Nigel Dodds, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Angus Robertson, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Michael Weir and Ann Winterton, presented a Bill to make provision for withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fishery Limits Act 1976; to make provision about the exercise of functions under that Act by Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Ministers and the Secretary of State; to provide that that Act shall have effect regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; to define English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May, and to be printed. [Bill 73].

Buses (Concessionary Fares)

Mr. Michael Foster, supported by Peter Bradley, Mr. Alan Campbell, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. David Drew, Mr. James Plaskitt, Mr. Patrick Hall and Mrs. Janet Dean presented a Bill to make provision about concessionary fares on buses for elderly persons. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April, and to be printed. [Bill 74].

Annual Leave Entitlement (Enforcement)

Anne Begg: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the enforcement of entitlements to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in that connection; and for connected purposes.
	The news that the national minimum wage is to be raised to more than 5 an hour in October this year hit all the national headlines last week. Seven years after the introduction of a national minimum wage, most people know about it. The work of the Inland Revenue national minimum wage enforcement agency's compliance officers has been effective. They are able to ensure that an employer is paying the whole work force the correct amount, and not just the worker who made the complaint. They can also visit some employers at random and target sectors and businesses that are notorious for low pay, such as restaurants, whose workers may be unwilling or unlikely to complain.
	However, enforcement officers will often find that failure to pay the minimum wage is not the whole story. The employer who keeps his workers on illegal poverty wages is highly unlikely to be fulfilling the provisions of the working time directive, and in particular the right to four weeks paid holiday. Yet as things stand, national minimum wage compliance officers are unable to take action against employers who fail to give workers their proper holiday entitlement by, for example, not paying them the full rate or by not giving the full four weeks holiday. My Bill aims to extend the powers already exercised by the compliance officers in order to allow them to pursue an employer for failure to provide annual leave entitlement.
	There are no definitive figures on the number of workers currently not receiving the paid holiday to which they are legally entitled. However, a 2002 TUC study of labour force survey data found that 400,000 full-time workers were receiving fewer than 12 days' paid leave, which means that even if they were receiving all eight bank holidays as additional paid leave, they were still not getting their statutory entitlement. More recently, a National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report entitled Still Wish You Were Here, published in December 2004, stated that tens of thousands of the employment-related inquiries dealt with by their bureaux involve non-compliance with the right to paid holiday. This is likely to be a gross underestimate of the true numbers, because the right to paid holiday is not as well known or understood as the right to the national minimum wage. Those most likely to be losing out are probably in part-time or temporary work or in low-paid sectors, which are often non-unionised. Many of them will be women.
	A study commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry in November 2004, entitled A survey of workers' experiences of the Working Time Regulations, found that 13 per cent. of a sample of workers were not receiving four weeks' paid leave. Only a third of that sample had any awareness of the right to paid holiday, and most of those did not know the actual law.
	Some workers get no paid holiday at all because their employer tells them that they do not qualify, or that they have to have a particular length of service. In Aberdeen, where there are a large number of temp agency workers, there is a particular problem in respect of those who are told that they are receiving a slightly higher hourly rate for the hours that they work to cover their paid holiday entitlement. The GMB union, which I thank for raising this issue with me, has found examples of members who are not paid the full rate for their holiday. In one case, restaurant workers received a basic hourly rate that was below the national minimum wage, but which was made up through tips paid via the payroll. When staff were on holiday, they received only the basic hourly rate. In a furniture factory in Grantham, piece-workers queried their holiday pay because it was lower than what they earned in a normal week, and therefore fell below the national minimum wage.
	In both cases, the workers raised the issue as a problem with the minimum wage, but when they were told that national minimum wage compliance officers could not take action on their holiday entitlement, they were upset, to say the least. They were told they had to go to an employment tribunal, which is a more complicated process and requires a worker first to raise the issue through the statutory grievance procedure. That is just too intimidating for a vulnerable worker to undertakethat is, if they still have a job at the end of it all. This procedure is not used for minimum wage violations, simply because it would leave an individual worker exposed to victimisation. If it is not appropriate for minimum wage violations, it is not appropriate for violations of paid holiday entitlement.
	That is why I believe that the compliance officers who are already working on the national minimum wage should be given the same powers to enforce holiday entitlement. The powers have already proved effective in seeking out and ending poverty pay, so it is sensible to use them to ensure that workers receive their holiday pay entitlement. Compliance officers themselves say that holiday pay fits in well with national minimum wage work, given that to calculate a worker's hourly rate they have to understand how much money paid to the worker represents wages and what counts as holiday pay. If the normal weekly wage is illegally low, the holiday pay will fall short by the same amount. When arrears are due because of underpayment of the national minimum wage, there will inevitably be arrears of holiday pay, too. The simple solution is to extend the powers that national minimum wage compliance officers already have to cover infringements of paid holiday entitlement. That is precisely what my Bill will do.
	I also want to highlight a particular problem faced by many of my constituents who work offshore in the oil and gas industry who are not, at present, getting their four weeks holiday entitlement. Despite the incorporation of the EU working time directive for the offshore industry into UK law through the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations, passed by the House on 22 October 2003, many of my constituents are still not getting their full holiday entitlement.
	I realise how important the oil and gas industry is to the economic prosperity of my constituency and how much employment it provides. However, I remain puzzled at the intransigence of operators and contractors in refusing to give their offshore employees the same paid holiday entitlement that is enjoyed by their onshore colleagues. I find it particularly perverse that their lawyers are now arguing in an industrial tribunal that the horizontal amending directiveHAD, as it is more commonly knownwhich extends the working time directive to the offshore oil and gas exploitation sector, does not apply offshore. I need to repeat that, in case it has not been understood. Despite the fact that the regulations define offshore work as
	work performed mainly on or from offshore installations, including drilling rigs,
	the industry is now arguing that the regulations do not apply offshore. I believe that that does no one any good. Indeed, it risks bringing the oil and gas industry into disreputein other respects, I am a great supporter of the industryas the only industry that does not provide a section of its work force with the right to four weeks paid holiday. That is a disgrace.
	This week, the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce published a report on the skills shortage in the oil and gas industry in the North sea and expressed concern that not enough young people were being attracted into the industry. School leavers who are looking for jobs with not only good prospects but good terms and conditions are unlikely to be impressed by the failure to give offshore workers their full holiday entitlement. This unnecessary battle through the courts sends out a totally wrong message to potential young workers.
	I appeal to the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumers and Postal ServicesI am pleased to see him in his placeto adopt Order in Council procedure sooner rather than later to enforce compliance with the working time directive, particularly if the industry continues to drag its heels. Of course, if my Bill is passed, the power would rest with the national minimum wage compliance officers to force even the employers in the oil and gas industry to provide full holiday entitlement to offshore workers and not leave people bogged down in an industrial tribunal.
	I do not have to tell the House how important holidays are to us all. They help to improve our physical and mental well-being, and paid holiday entitlement means that such holidays can be taken without financial worries. This is a simple Bill, with the potential to improve the lives of thousands of people. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Frank Doran, Ann Keen, Jim Knight, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. John Grogan, Kali Mountford, Rob Marris, Lady Hermon, Iain Wright, Mrs. Anne Campbell and Mr. Malcolm Savidge.

Annual Leave Entitlement (Enforcement)

Miss Anne Begg accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the enforcement of entitlements to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in that connection; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 May; and to be printed [Bill 75].

Opposition Day
	  
	[5th Allotted Day]

Council Tax

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that council tax bills have increased by 70 per cent. under the Labour Government, with further above-inflation rises planned in the forthcoming year and after the general election; expresses concern that pensioners have been hit hardest and calls on the Government to implement the Conservative policy of an automatic council tax discount for those aged 65 and over; notes with alarm the Government's plans in any third term for a revaluation which would lead to greater inequities and new higher council tax bands; rejects Liberal Democrat plans for a local income tax, regional income tax and higher national income tax; and calls for less bureaucracy and interference from Whitehall and regional bureaucrats in local government funding and for greater transparency in the allocation of local funding for councils.
	I seem to be making a habit of standing before the Chamber to talk about a crisis. Last time, it was the crisis in housing and this time it is the crisis in local government funding. It seems to me that we have a Government who are prone to crises. Where the housing crisis particularly hurts the young, the council tax crisis particularly hurts the elderlyit cannot be said that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister discriminates on grounds of age. People who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement should live in dignity and security in old age, but today many of them, particularly those on fixed incomes, find it difficult to make ends meet because of the burden of taxation, which the Government have increased by stealth.
	The council tax has proved to be the ultimate stealth tax under this Government, as council tax payers have seen their bills soar by 76 per cent. since 1997. That means that more than a third of the increase in the state pension has been swallowed up by council tax hikes.

Clive Betts: Who brought it in? [Laughter.]

Caroline Spelman: I do not think that this is funny, Mr.   Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter of[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me make it clear from the outset that I want no interventions from a sedentary position. If Members want to intervene, they must stand up and do so in the conventional way.

Caroline Spelman: As I was saying, more than a third of the state pension increase has been swallowed up by council tax rises. This year, typical council tax bills will top 100 a month for the first time in the history of the council tax. Is it any wonder that people feel so betrayed, when they recall the Prime Minister saying:
	We have no plans to put up taxes?

Lembit �pik: Is the hon. Lady aware that the position in Wales is even worse, because the rebanding has led to 33 per cent. of properties being allocated to a higher band and only 8 per cent. to a lower one? In effect, 25 per cent. of houses in Wales have been subjected to a further significant tax increase.

Caroline Spelman: Before responding to his intervention, I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 40th birthday. That is the good news, but I have to impart a bit of bad news. What he says about Wales is trueI shall come on to deal with it later in my analysisbut I remind the hon. Gentleman that in July 2003 his party voted in favour of increasing council tax bands.
	The fact is that it has been convenient for the Chancellor to shift the burden of taxation on to local government, and we have seen a constant stream of unfunded burdens foisted on to local government, leaving local authorities no choice but to put up council tax.

Patrick Hall: On the issue of underfunding, will the hon. Lady tell us how she proposes to fund her party's offer of a council tax discount for pensioners?

Caroline Spelman: I shall be happy to explain it later in my speech, but for the avoidance of any doubt, it would be worth quickly listing some of the unfunded burdens, which make uncomfortably long reading. The increase in national insurance has added 280 million to local authorities' costs and fuel duty has increased by 25 per cent. since 1997. Councils have been faced with the financial consequences of the landfill tax, the pension tax, numerous EU directives such as the end of life vehicle directive, the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and so forth. All those have added costs to local government, which has not been granted matched funding from the centre.
	The Government defence of those rises has been a master class in dissembling and disinformation, but that has not fooled the taxpayers. When MORI asked voters last year whom they blamed for their council tax increases, 78 per cent. said that they blamed central Government. Of course, they are right to do so, as on average 75 per cent. of what is spent on local services derives from central Government grant.
	The Minister is fond of telling the House that every local authority has received an above-inflation increase in formula grant, but that bland statement conceals the fact that the Government have so manipulated the level of the grant to different authorities that there are glaring contrasts in the increases that councils have had to make to council tax to maintain services. The really revealing figure emerges when we look at Government grant per capita to each local authority which, conveniently, I was given in a written answer on 11 January. At the top end, councils such as Nottingham have enjoyed a grant increase of more than 76 per cent. since 1998 and, guess what, Sedgefield is in the top five, with a 68 per cent. increase. Every authority with an per capita grant increase below 20 per cent. has suffered a real-terms cut, and that includes many Conservative-held district councils. Sevenoaks is at the bottom of the pile, with a 5.1 per cent. reduction that is, of course, a 30 per cent. cut in real terms.

Clive Betts: Does the hon. Lady accept that overall local government has done very well from this Government? It has had a 33 per cent. increase in real terms in grant since 1997, compared with a 7 per cent. cut over the previous four years. Of the so-called burdens that have been inflicted on local authorities, which she has just read out, can she tell us which burdens her party will commit itself to removing, should it by some mischance happen to win the general election?

Caroline Spelman: I shall come on to the removal of burdens. The point is that increases in grant vary from area to area. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go back to his constituency and, no doubt through gritted teeth, inform his pensioners that under our proposals a single pensioner living alone would be 456 better off when her council tax is halved.

Patrick McLoughlin: We continually hear the story of how local government has done very well in the past eight years of Labour Government. If that is the case, can my hon. Friend tell us why we have seen such a record increase in council tax?

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has given me the opportunity to reveal the inequity of the grant distribution. The sheer range of the allocations beggars belief, but it helps to explain why so many Conservative authorities have been short-changed since 1997. The Government have now been rumbled, and in the debate on local government finance settlements last month, the Minister fell into his own trap by threatening councils with capping if this year's council tax increases are above 5 per cent. He suddenly realised that he may have bitten the hand that feeds him. The truth is that efficient, well run Conservative councils are the goose that lays the golden egg for this Government.

Andrew Bennett: While we are on the question of equity, I should perhaps thank the hon. Lady for her proposal to reduce my council tax bill by 500 a year. Is that really sensible, however, given that people on very small pensions will get no benefit at all? Is not it logical to provide help for all council tax payers, rather than just the better-off?

Caroline Spelman: With respect, I suggest that the full detail of our proposal is not completely clear to the hon. Gentleman. There is a cap of 500 and I shall explain that in more detail. I remind him, however, that it was his party that committed itself to stop means-testing. If he is in any doubt about what pensioners feel about means-testing, he should go and ask them, because they find it offensive to be means-tested in later life. That is why our discount would be universally available to the over-65s.

Anne Campbell: How does the hon. Lady explain the record council tax increases we have had in Cambridgeshire? Recent grant increases include 11.2 per cent. from April this year, 8 per cent. for the current year and 11 per cent. for last year. Despite those record increases in grant from a Labour Government, we have had record increases in council tax from a Conservative county council.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Lady seems not to have got the essential point at this stage of the debate, which is that the grants distributed to various parts of the country are very inequitable. Cambridgeshire has been in receipt of a below-average Government grant, and one of the consequences has been that the local authority has been forced to recover more of what it costs to fund local services from local taxation.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Lady please correct the record? Cambridgeshire has not received below-average grant increases: it has received above-average grant increases in each of the past three years. For the sake of accuracy, will she please now confirm that?

Caroline Spelman: The Minister is very knowledgeable about local government finance and he knows the answer to his own question. It is because Cambridgeshire is an education authority. The unitary authorities have fared better under his grant system and the district councils have fared poorly.
	It is small wonder that Runnymede council, which was rated excellent by the Government's watchdog, has had to double its council tax since 1997 to make up for its 20 per cent. decrease in real terms grant. One council leader rang me up this week saying that he will have to risk capping with a 5.9 per cent. increase because he is just not prepared to cut services. As a unitary authority, his council received a poor settlement of a 4.4 per cent. increase, compared to an average of 6.1 per cent. for comparable authorities. It just goes to show how unfair the system is.
	Eight years ago, the Government started with a policy of deliberately forcing up council tax in what they perceived as affluent areas, then they panicked and capped, and they are now forcing service cuts on the same areas. Would the Minister like to tell me which services he wants councils such as Southend to cut?
	We could spend a great deal longer than a single Opposition day discussing the smoke and mirrors deployed by this Administration in local government finance, but the fact is that the people to whom we are accountablethe tax-paying publicknow that since 1997 council tax has gone through the roof.

Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend share my deep misgivings about the behaviour of the Government in relation to the West Mercia constabulary? Some 300 additional officers were paid for entirely out of increases in the council tax. The Government's reaction has been to nominate the authority and threaten to cap it. On top of that, they try to take credit for the additional police officers. The Government cannot have it both ways.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In another helpful written answer on 28 February, it was revealed that the per capita funding for the police also shows incredible inequity in its distribution.
	The pain of the crisis in local government finance has fallen disproportionately on our pensioners, exchanging their dignity and security for anxiety and penury. We must not forget that under this Prime Minister 2 million pensioners still live in poverty. And there is worse to come. If Labour should get a third term in office and council tax inflation continues on the same trajectory that it has followed since 1997, band D bills will hit 1,836 by the end of that third term. Moreover, under Government plans to introduce new, higher bandsa measure that has met support from both Labour and, as I mentioned, the Liberal Democratsa typical household bill will be taken to well over 2,000.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Lady was talking earlier about universality as a panacea to the problems, but has she considered the question in the round? What would happen to pensioners whose payment of council tax was entirely discounted? Has she considered how the Conservative proposal could be paid for, given that there are, I believe, proposals to end other universal benefits, such as winter fuel payments, TV licences and tax relief for pensioners?

Caroline Spelman: Of course the proposal has been carefully thought out. It is, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out, fully costed and fully funded. I reassure the hon. Lady that the discount for pensioners, which I am about to deal with in more detail, would come on top of the existing council tax benefit, single person's discount and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) confirmed, winter fuel payments. [Interruption.] If Labour Members will hold on while I discuss in more detail what our proposal will consist ofperhaps when they see its merits they will join me in challenging the Government to match itmany of their questions will be answered.
	The Government have committed themselves to the revaluation of property, which is already being undertaken in Wales, where four times as many homes have moved up one or more bands as have moved down. If that were repeated in England, 7 million homes would go up a band. How else should that exercise be described but as rigged revaluation? It is a ticking tax time bomb, primed to explode on the doorsteps if Labour wins the next general election.

David Borrow: Does the hon. Lady agree that the effect of the revaluation is not an increase in the total amount of council tax revenues but redistribution in collection to reflect more accurately the value of properties? If more properties end up in a higher band, that reflects the fact that more properties in that area have gone up in value, but bands will go down in other areas and people will pay less.

Caroline Spelman: I am concerned about the hon. Gentleman's naivety in this matter. Although I agree that the objective should not be to increase the total amount of money raised because it is a completely disconnected fact that property prices have risen, the fact is that the revaluation is being used in Wales as a redistributive tool. Therefore, we conclude that its extrapolation to England would have a redistributive effect and, in fact, aggravate the inequity that I have been describing in distribution of central Government grant.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Lady clarify her position on council tax, given that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who is in her own team, told the House on 2 February,
	Any council tax system inevitably requires some form of revaluation?[Official Report, 2 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 929.]
	Would they keep council tax or not?

Caroline Spelman: I think that I have made it perfectly clear that we are proposing corrections to problems in the council tax system that have been vastly aggravated by the Government.

Edward Davey: Wriggling!

Caroline Spelman: I am not wriggling. The answer to the question about revaluation is that, of course, a property-based tax must take account of changes in the value of the property, but it does not have to be used to fill the Chancellor's coffers with extra money by stealth or to redistribute grant inequitably between different parts of the country.
	The Conservative solution to the problem facing our pensioners is simple. It is to cut the council tax in half for those aged 65. In our first year in office that would mean that more than 5 million pensioners or 3.8 million pensioner households would see their council tax bills halved. Such a discount would not be means-tested because we recognise how much pensioners dislike the intrusion of means-testing in their lives, but it would be capped at 500 to allow the resources to be targeted on those who most need it. It will be given on top of council tax benefit if a pensioner is in receipt of that and in addition to the single person's discount of 25 per cent. if the pensioner lives alone.

Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman has had one intervention; this is a very important point, which answers a number of Labour Members' questions.
	The tax cut will be fully funded by central Government from the 4 billion-worth of savings identified in central Government by our James review, which the shadow Chancellor has allocated for tax reductions.

Andrew Bennett: Many pensioners in my constituency are on a full rebate at present. How do they get the 500?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman might like to tell the pensioners in his constituency who pay council tax

Andrew Bennett: Many pensioners are not paying because they get the discount.

Caroline Spelman: Ah, but many are paying, and often it is the pensioners with just a little in savings, taking them out of eligibility for benefits, who are the worst off. The hon. Gentleman might like to tell the pensioners in his constituency who are eligible to pay council tax that, under our proposals, a single pensioner living by herself in his constituency would be more than 450 better off.

Julie Kirkbride: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the reaction among Labour Members is typical, because they do not understand the pain and upset caused to people whom she and I represent in neighbouring constituencies who have worked hard all their lives and saved their money? Those people have a modest pension and nest egg for their retirement, which they want to keep to pay bills or to pass on to their children, and they find that that nest egg is decimated by their having to dip into it year on year because of increases in council tax imposed by the Government.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend has reinforced my point extremely well. Labour Members may refuse to take up that point, but I hope that they will begin to understand the strength of feeling among Conservative Members, and why we are glad to have secured this debate.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I should like to make progress; the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a speech later.
	Labour spokesmen have decried the offer of help to pensioners with their stock response of fantasy figures. If that discredited allegation is the best that the Government can do, it proves how desperate their position is. The fact is that the Government's own efficiency review, conducted by Sir Peter Gershon, admitted to 22 billion of waste in central Government. Surely it is not too much to ask to let hard-pressed pensioners have 1.3 billion of that to help with their council tax bills.
	The Deputy Prime Minister's own empirehow I wish that he was here to hear thiswastes money, such as the millions of pounds that were poured into the futile attempt to talk the electorate into regional assemblies. That idea was roundly rejected by the people of the north-east last autumn. However, he cannot take no for an answer and he is still burning up millions of pounds of taxpayers' money transferring powers to regional level.
	That is just one example of the Government's profligacy costing taxpayers dear. The savings that we have identified will help councils to keep levels of council tax down for everyone. Pensioners in particular will receive help, but all council tax payers will be helped by our action plan to reduce the costs and burdens that councils face. We would close the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and transfer the functions to a smaller new Department for local government, whose tasks would be to decentralise and deregulate, to empower and support local decision making and to secure better value for money.
	We would free local councils from the straitjacket of central Government and the plethora of performance targets and armies of inspectors that cost local authorities and general taxpayers more than 1 billion. That 1 billion would be better spent on keeping council tax down to a sustainable level for everyone.
	We believe that no single sector of society shouldshoulder the tax burden disproportionately. Unfortunately, that is exactly what would happen under the Liberal Democrats' proposal. The local income tax would be no panacea for the problems of local government finance. The Lib Dem slogan, Axe the tax, is disingenuous because it implies that there would be no tax at all. In reality, however, the burden of taxation would be shifted on to hard-working families. Pensioners, many of whom are grandparents, do not like the idea of the burden of taxation being shifted on to their children and their children's children.
	The Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman had the honesty in an interview with the Evening Standard to admit that local income tax would bite on a household with a joint income in the mid-30,000s. By our calculations, typical working families would have to pay 630 more than their council tax payments today. Pensioners who pay income tax would not escape either. Some 71 per cent. of pensioners receive income from their savings, yet that would be taxed under the Liberal Democrats' proposal. Their plans for a local income tax would come on top of those for higher national income tax and a regional income tax to fund regional assemblies. I say, Beware the axe man.
	Council tax payers of all ages deserve better than that on offer from either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Neither party has seriously addressed the drivers of council tax inflation. The Conservative party has pledged to halve the council tax for millions of pensioners and to scrap Labour's plans for higher council tax bands and a rigged revaluation.

Clive Betts: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I am about to finish my speech.
	We have pledged to cut back on unfunded burdens, regulations and red tape, and to ensure that there is fairer funding from Whitehall. Additionally, we have said that we will deliver above-inflation increases for schools, the police, health and social services. People face a clear choice: more waste and higher taxes under Labour, or value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the Government's support for local government with its 33 per cent. grant increase in real terms since 1997, compared to a real terms cut of 7 per cent. in the last four years of the previous administration; notes that the increase in council tax this year is set to be the lowest in over a decade at around 4 per cent. and the second lowest since it was introduced and is less than the increase in average earnings; notes CIPFA's view that it will add less than 1 a week to average council tax bills; further notes that the effect of the Opposition's policy to cut grant to councils and abolish capping would allow council tax to rise unchecked; and looks forward to the report of the Lyons inquiry into local government funding which is due by the end of this year.
	We have just heard a speech of breathtaking insincerity, surprising ignorance and shameless opportunism that told us a great deal about today's Conservative party. The Conservatives have conveniently forgotten their lamentable record in government and are displaying a staggering capacity for self-delusion about the responsibilities of being in government. They are playing fast and loose with the serious business of local government finance and are unforgivably trying to perpetrate a cruel deception on millions of elderly people by promising benefits that they could never deliver. Their latest electoral gimmick, for that is what it is, comes, of course, from the same individual who gave us the poll tax when his attention was last turned to local government finance. I intend to return with some relish to the Conservatives' record and their non-credible proposals.
	We should put the record straight about the council tax in 200506. Who would have thought, after listening to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), that according to the estimates of the much-respected Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, we will see in the coming year the lowest council tax increases for 11 years and[Interruption.] Wait for it; I have good news. Conservative Members will not like it, but they will hear it anyway. It is also estimated that that will be the second lowest council tax increase ever. Contrast that with the 16.5 per cent. increase in the last year of the poll tax, for which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was responsible.

Edward Davey: Did not that same CIPFA report say that spending pressures are building up in the system which threaten a huge council tax rise after the election because the Government have not guaranteed that they will repeat the one-off bribe detailed in the pre-Budget report?

Nick Raynsford: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's language. I will come to his point later, but the claim that there was a bribe is not worthy of him. I am sure that he will accept that the CIPFA report confirms that the increase in council tax this year will be the lowest for 11 years, but one would not have had the slightest idea about that from what the hon. Member for Meriden said. Her speech was one of total delusion that showed that she simply did not understand reality.

Eric Pickles: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in addition to predicting massive council tax rises next year, the CIPFA report took into consideration the fact that the council tax for band B properties has gone up by 76 per cent. since 1997?

Nick Raynsford: As I said, I shall come on to the subject of next year. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the CIPFA report starts with a clear statement that we will have the lowest increase in council tax for 11 years. The consequence of that will be an average increase of less than 1 a week. Those are the facts, so I am surprised that he and his colleagues are not celebrating the good news that council tax bills are being brought down from the unacceptably high levels that we have experienced.

Peter Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: I want to make a bit of progress, but I will give way later.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) should recognise that it is no accident that we will have the lowest increase for 11 years. It is the result of hard work over three years to bring down council tax from the unjustifiable levels that we saw in 200304. Last year, with additional resources and the judicious use of our capping powers, we cut the increase from 12.9 per cent. to 5.9 per cent. We will take the same approach this year, and the CIPFA report suggests that the increase will fall again to just 4 per cent.

Nigel Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: I want to make a bit of progress.
	This situation has been achieved with no help at all from the Conservative party. It has gone wobbly on capping, conveniently forgetting its record in government, and its councils have the lamentable record of making the largest council tax increases. The figures speak for themselves[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) would do well to listen to these figures.
	Latest indications show that while councils have budgeted prudently overall and kept council tax levels down, a clutch of councils is bucking the trend. Aylesbury Vale district council is reported to be considering a 9.2 per cent. increase. Huntingdonshire district council is thought to be making a 12.7 per cent. increase, and Mid Bedfordshire district council a 13 per cent. increase. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Runnymede borough council has already set a 17.5 per cent. increase. Hambleton district council has set a 17.9 per cent. increase.

Malcolm Moss: rose

Alistair Burt: rose

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentlemen restrained themselves, they might find these figures instructive. They can make their interventions after they have listened to the figures because they tell an interesting story.
	North Dorset district council has set a 23.7 per cent. increase and South Cambridgeshire district council has set a 100 per cent increaseyes, 100 per cent. What do all the councils that I have mentioned have in common? They are controlled or led by the Conservatives. That is the common factor behind the disproportionate increases in council tax.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight on Huntingdonshire district council. Could the proposed increase in its council tax have anything remotely to do with the fact that the Government have clawed back 750,000 of its grant?

Nick Raynsford: No. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework. He knows that Huntingdonshire district council received an 8.5 per cent. grant increase. How does he have the nerve to come to the House to make such a complaint, given that the authority will receive a grant increase that is massively above inflation, yet wishes to impose a wholly exceptional council tax increase on his constituents?

Alistair Burt: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the outstanding increase in mid-Bedfordshire of 13.3 per cent. Is he aware that Mid Bedfordshire district council has the 10th lowest district charge of 238 authorities in England? The 13.3 per cent. increase is equivalent to 1 a month.

Nick Raynsford: I am well aware that Mid Bedfordshire district council received a 5.2 per cent. grant increase. Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Meriden that those Conservative councils were suffering from unreasonably low grant increases, they have received huge grant increases well above inflation. It is because they cannot manage their affairs properly that their residents have been confronted with wholly unreasonable council tax increases.

Philip Hammond: The Minister will know that the increase in Runnymede, which he mentioned, is equivalent to 34p a week. Over the eight years in which the Government have been in office, Runnymede has received an increase in total grant per capita of the princely sum of 0.4 per cent., which is equivalent to a 25 per cent. cut in real terms. Will he confirm, however, that the district councils on the list that he read out have something else in common, as their band D council tax is below the Government's notional band D figure?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know that his per capita figures are not given on a like-for-like basis. It is terribly easy to compare unlike with unlike, which creates a distorted picture. On a like-for-like basis, Runnymede councilI am speaking about comparable services because, as he knows, they can change from year to yearhas once again received an inflation-matching increase in grant this year. It is one of the most affluent authorities in the country, with one of the largest council tax bases. If all other variables are removed, the single factor that links the councils that I mentioned is the fact that they are all Conservative-led or Conservative-controlled. Those abnormally high council tax increases are not the product of reduced government grantevery council in the country received an increase in grant, on a like-for-like basis, at least equivalent to inflation, and that never happened under Conservative Governments. Nor is it the case, as some Conservatives have dishonestly sought to claim, that all the grant has been shifted up north. Many of my hon. Friends might wish that that were the case, but as the figures show, the southern regions have done just as well from the 200506 settlement as the northern ones.

Martin Salter: The Minister will be acutely aware of discomfort in loyal Labour Reading at receiving a grant increase of 4.9 per cent., when affluent Tory Wokingham benefited from a 13.9 per cent. grant increase? Whatever accusations one levels at the Minister, they are not about partisanship in local government grant settlements in Berkshire.

Nick Raynsford: I take that mild rebuke from my hon. Friend as an indication that the Opposition's allegations are wholly unfounded. It is sad that the hon. Member for Meriden, who made those claims, did not have the decency to withdraw them.
	Authorities in the south-east will receive a formula grant increase of 5.2 per cent. in the coming year. Authorities in the north-west will receive an average of 5.1 per cent.; authorities in Yorkshire and the Humber will receive an increase of 5.2 per cent.; and authorities in the north-east an increase of 5.3 per cent. So much for the nonsense from the Opposition about favouring authorities in the north over those in the south.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister talked about the increase for authorities in the north-east. Can he explain why the Prime Minister's constituency of Sedgefield has had a per capita increase of 68 per cent. under this Government?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman would know if he had been listening, the per capita increases that have been set out are not made on a like-for-like basis, so there are no proper grounds for comparison. He will be well aware that Sedgefield is an area in County Durham with serious problems of deprivation following the disappearance of traditional industries, and authorities with such problems have far more significant cost needs. The formula system rightly takes account of that, as well as the special needs of areas, such as the one represented by the hon. Gentleman, where there is sparsity. Sparsity is therefore a factor in the settlement. The system also takes account of pressures in areas with high costs, and areas such as Cambridgeshire have received substantial grant increases because of changes to the area cost adjustment.
	Anyone who understands the way the formula works will know that it takes account of the cost pressures on local government, and distributes funds in the fairest possible way to authorities to ensure that they receive a settlement that enables them to deliver services. The differencethe hon. Member for Meriden would do well to listenbetween what happens now and what happened when the Conservatives were in government is that in those days councils did not receive increases in grant, but often suffered cuts. In the eight years in which Labour has been in office, councils have received good grant increases year on year, as has been accepted by fair-minded commentators of all political persuasions.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)I am delighted that he is here todayhas long experience in this subject, and had the difficult task of announcing much less generous settlements when he was a local government Minister. In the debate on 2 February, he said:
	I am tempted to say that this settlement is as good as it gets. It might well be the best settlement of the decade.

David Curry: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to read the words that immediately follow that quotation? I said that from now on the air would be thick with the chickens of Labour's economic policy coming home to roost, and that settlements would be much tougher if Labour won the election.

Nick Raynsford: No, that was not it. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said:
	I suspect that whichever party wins the . . . election, the next settlements will not be as welcome as this one. [Official Report, 2 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 945.]
	I do not think that his party will take much comfort from that. However, I shall come on to future settlements, as I have already told hon. Members.

Julian Lewis: The Minister referred to fair-minded commentators. Does he accept the objectivity of the Audit Commission and, if so, how does he explain the fact that it has noted that
	grant redistributionwhich moved grant from London and the south to the Midlands and the northled to some councils putting up council tax more than others. We found a clear association between the size of grant increase a council received and their increase in council tax?
	Is the commission making that up?

Nick Raynsford: That report from the Audit Commission is a year and a half out of date. [Interruption.] No, it did not reflect accurately the grant distribution at the time and, on that particular issue, it got it wrong. The hon. Gentleman will know from the figures that I have just quoted that, this year, authorities in the south of England received grant increases of no lesser value than those in the north. There was no question of a differential, and the different increases in council tax, with Conservative councils introducing much larger charges, do not relate to grant levels. There is not a correlation between the levels of grant increase and the levels of council tax increase.

Several hon. Members: rose

Nick Raynsford: I have already given way, and I shall make some progress.
	It should be a source of shame to the Opposition that the largest increases in council tax reported this year have all been made by Conservative-led councils. The protestations from the hon. Member for Meriden about the unfair impact of high council tax increases have a strong whiff of humbug and hypocrisy about them, as the problem has been created by her own party. Instead of seeking to divert attention with specious attacks on a Government who have given far more generous funding to local government than her party ever did, she would do better to try to get a grip on her own councillors, who have shown a cavalier disregard for the impact of high council tax rises on local residents. While she fails spectacularly to tackle the problems in her own backyard no one will have any confidence at all in her or in her party's ability to keep council tax down.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has sought to justify his redistribution of grant. Assuming for a moment that we buy that argument, that still means that authorities that have had grant redistributed away from them are faced with a simple choice: cut services or increase taxes. What services would he like my council, Runnymede, to cut if it does not increase the council tax?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has made a fundamental mistake. He has forgotten that every council got a grant increase that matched or was higher than inflation; no council has had money taken away from it. When his party was in power, councils used to have grant taken away. I ask him to go back eight or nine years and remember what it was like when his party was in government and cut grant. Under this Government, councils have all had an increase in grant. He should remember that, and perhaps he should do his homework a little better before he makes further interruptions.
	Because the Opposition parties know in their hearts that the 200506 local government settlement is a good one that enables all properly run councils to deliver high-quality services without imposing unreasonable council tax increases, they have sought to divert attention from this year's outcome by running scare stories about supposed future threats. The Liberal Democrats are just as guilty in that regard as the official Opposition. Take the issue of revaluation. The Opposition motion notes with alarm the plans for   revaluation. The implication is that they do not wish any revaluation to take place. If the hon. Member for Meriden is saying that they do want revaluation to take place, I would be grateful if she confirmed that. I am happy to give way to her.

Caroline Spelman: In my opening speech, I made clear our position on revaluation. Of course we understand that a property-based tax has to take account of changes in the value of property, but the revaluation exercise does not have to be a stealth exercise to garner more money for the coffers of the Chancellor or for a massive redistribution to compound further the problems of inequity that arise from the present system.

Nick Raynsford: That is an interesting intervention, because it reveals just how badly briefed the hon. Lady is. We have repeatedly made it clear that there will be no increase in the yield as a result of revaluation. Revaluation is taking place simply to ensure that we should base values on up-to-date values, rather than on values that are 14 years old. It is nonsense to base values for council tax purposes on 1991 values that have to be notionally imputed for all new properties, so revaluation is necessary. We are doing it on a basis that ensures that we have up-to-date values, but with a clear commitment that there will be no increase in the overall yield. That has been made clear year after year, time after time. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was in the Committee when we made that clear two years ago. We have repeatedly said that, and I am only sorry that the hon. Lady has not understood that that commitment has been given.

David Curry: The right hon. Gentleman will know that revaluation is often associated with the concept of rebanding. It does not mean anything to say that there will be no increase in overall take. What matters is where the take happens within the bands. There is much speculation that there will be a new low band, which means a lower take for councils with large numbers of properties in the low band, and there is also speculation about the addition of at least two new bands, which would mean higher council taxes. In addition to that, if there is regional valuation, areas that have done relatively well in house prices in a generally depressed market will find their bands increased. The Minister's assurance means nothing unless he is also prepared to say that there will be no rebanding exercise, because it is rebanding linked to revaluation that gives rise to people's concerns.

Nick Raynsford: Earlier, I quoted the right hon. Gentleman's comments on 2 February, and I quote him again. On that occasion he said:
	The Minister said clearly that he did not expect to increase the yield from a rebanding and revaluation. I happily accept that[Official Report, 2 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 945.]
	He accepted that then and I hope that he will accept it now.
	Yes, of course we will consider the question of rebanding. We have powers to adopt different bands in different regions and to introduce different bands if we feel that that is appropriate, but any such decision will be taken in the light of the evidence of the Lyons inquiry, because we want to look carefully at the evidence before decisions are reached. Our clear objective has always been that there will be no increase in yield as a result of the revaluation.

David Curry: Of course I accept what the Minister says, but a constituent in my division would be unlikely to say to himself, Oh, that's fine. There is no increase in overall yield for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if his own council tax had gone up by a band. That is the heart of the argument as far as people are concerned. Unless the exercise means nothing except the maintenance of all the existing relativities, the Minister's assurances are welcome but will not mean much to the person paying the Bills.

Nick Raynsford: There are two separate issues here, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand. The first is the overall yield. He accepts the commitment that I have given and I hope that the hon. Lady will. It has been made clearly often enough. The second issue is the impact on individual households. Yes, of course there will be variations because values have changed. Some will go up, some will stay the same and some will go down. Until we have the evidence from the valuation exercise, we will not know what the likelihood of those movements will be, or how it is appropriate to damp them through transitional arrangements or any other changes to the banding system. I have made it clear that we will do that in the light of the evidence because our overall commitment is not to increase yield, and we also do not want to aggravate potential turbulence as a result of changes. Those commitments have been made clear. We will act on that basis and I hope the right hon. Gentleman accepts that.

Edward Davey: We are coming up to a general election. The Minister suggests that he can give the British electorate no indication of how revaluation will work. Will he admit for the record that, however it is done, revaluation will mean that millions of households will lose and receive higher council tax bills? That is the lesson not just from Wales, but from all past property tax revaluations.

Nick Raynsford: No, and I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has, rather uncharacteristically, gone for completely unjustified scare tactics. He knows that the values are set at the date of April 2005. Until the process has begun, no one can know what the relative values of different properties are. He knows very well that, over the past two years, there have been significant variations in the movement of house prices in different parts of the country. Two years ago, the figures would have shown that in London there was a substantial increase compared with 1991 vis--vis Yorkshire. Latest figures suggest that Yorkshire and London are now more or less in the same relationship as they were in 1991there is very little difference. That has been a significant move in recent years. Until we have all the evidence, examine it carefully and decide whether there should be changes in banding and, if so, what transitional arrangements there will be, it is entirely hypothetical and utterly speculative to talk about potential losses or, indeed, gains. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will in future be more serious, as he usually is in these debates.
	I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), who is an expert in these matters.

David Borrow: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the point that the Conservative spokesman was making about unfair redistribution of grant? I have an excerpt from The Surrey-Hants Star in 2003, which quotes a comment from
	Finance boss Coun. Lorraine Fulbrook
	of Hart district council, who said:
	Huge council tax rises are set for the south this year as the Government diverts our money from the south to its friends in the north.
	Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that should the party of Lorraine Fulbrook come to power, money will be taken away from Labour Lancashire county council and redistributed to Tory county councils in the south of England?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point that there are some extremely ill-informed and entirely inaccurate comments from some people. I am only sorry that those on the Opposition Front Bench have compounded some of those wild and totally unjustified allegations.

Paul Beresford: One concern that some of us have about revaluation is that the combination of revaluation and rebandingincreasing the number of bands at top and bottomwill be reflected in the assessment of need and grant. That is where the biggest change could happen. Will the Minister consider regionalising that to diminish the effect of just using dampening measures?

Nick Raynsford: Had the hon. Gentleman been a member of the Committee that considered the Local Government Act 2003, he would know that we have given ourselves powers to introduce new bands, but there is no commitment to do so. We have said, and I said it again today, that we will await the advice of the Lyons inquiry. We also have powers to adopt regional bands, if necessary. That could be a useful tool to damp the impact of variations in prices since 1991 between regions. We will consider all these issues with the evidence, when that evidence becomes available, after the valuations begin. As I have already indicated, that does not happen until April 2005 because that is the valuation date.

Patrick Hall: Does my right hon. Friend share my recollection from the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill, as it then was, in 2003, that, when revaluation was discussed, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative members of the Committee did not seek to stir up and frighten people about the effect of revaluation? They accepted the sensible need to go ahead with it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proximity of a general election is leading them to try to frighten people with totally spurious scare stories?

Nick Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend's observation and I would only make the point that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who was on the Front Bench in that Committee, moved an amendment to require five-yearly revaluations, but did not press it to a Division. I suspect that the fact that he is not speaking from the Front Bench shows that it did not find favour with his party.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) says is quite untrue. In fact, during the Bill's passage, particularly on Report, I remember saying from the Front Bench, to screams from the Government Benches, that the Government had hit on a seam of silver in raising extra money by rebanding. The Minister will find that phrase if he looks in Hansard.

Nick Raynsford: It is not particularly helpful to pursue questions of what might or might not have been said. It is on the record that the hon. Gentleman pressed for five-yearly revaluations. The Government feel that a 10-year cycle is appropriate, and I am only sorry that the Opposition, in their motion today, choose some rather extraordinary words in saying that they note
	with alarm the Government's plans . . . for a revaluation,
	which everyone here has clearly accepted is necessary to bring values up to date.
	We have covered valuation in some detail and I shall move on, but first, in view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Meriden, I want to make it clear that speculation that the recent revaluation in Wales is a precedent for England is entirely misleading. The decision to have the revaluation in Wales two years before England was taken by the Welsh Assembly Government, who also decided on a new banding scheme and transitional arrangements in Wales. Wales has always had different council tax bands from England, and what is happening in Wales is not a precedent for England.
	The Opposition parties also pretend that this year's increase in grant is a one-off, and that next year there will be additional pressures on local government budgets. The truth is that this year's settlement, while good, is by no means a one-off. The overall increase in Government grant in 200506 will be 6.3 per cent. The equivalent increase in 200304 was 8 per cent. and, in 200405, local authorities benefited from an additional 7.3 per cent.both higher than next year's generous investment. I hope that we will hear no more from the Opposition parties of their entirely misleading and inaccurate claim that this is a one-off.
	The Government, unlike the Opposition, are committed to ensuring proper levels of support to local government to enable councils to deliver their responsibilities without imposing unreasonable council tax demands. We are also committed to the new burdens principle under which Government accept responsibility for meeting the additional costs of new responsibilities placed on local government. Of course local authorities will claim that they face rising cost pressures. They always do. They do it every year in the period leading up to the settlement. Some of those claimed pressures are real, some are exaggerated. Each year we look seriously and rigorously at the balance sheet, and, as hon. Members know full well, in each of the last two years we have put additional resources into the settlement in response to justified arguments put by local government that there were real pressures. We also expect local government to operate in a cost-effective way and to make savings where, as the Gershon review has demonstrated, there is scope to do so. That is the responsible way to support local government and ensure that it operates cost-effectively.
	By contrast, the Opposition have no credible or serious policies to offer. They cannot even control their own councillors and their financial projections are so fanciful that they would make even Walter Mitty blush.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I want to make a serious point. Does he concede that all councils have cost pressures on their budgets because of the increases imposed by this Government in terms of national insurance and pension contributions, waste obligations, increases in the landfill levy, the redistribution of capital receipts and the abolition of the local authority housing grant, which of course increase their need for a council tax increase?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has simply read out a list that was read out earlier, and some of those apply to some councils, but not all to all councils. All of them have been taken into account and, as he will know, local government has received a 33 per cent. real-terms increase in grant under the Government, whereas when the Conservative party was in power, local government faced cuts year on year on year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who is again commenting from a sedentary position, would do well to remember that, when his party was in power, it cut local authority spending. It did not increase it.
	As the shadow Chancellor has made absolutely clear, the Conservative party is committed to 35 billion of public expenditure cuts. If it was ever elected, those cuts would cause immense damage to local government, which would bear the brunt, as it did when the Conservatives were last in power. The issue is so important that I intend to spend a little time on it. The Tories' commitment to slash 35 billion will have a massive impact on public services and a massive impact on pensioners. It is patently obvious that the Conservative party cannot make cuts of that magnitude and at the same time fund the spending pledges and tax cuts that it has promised.
	Let us take the example of pensioners, as the hon. Member for Meriden made much play of pensioners in her opening remarks. The pensioners of this country will not forget what the Tories did to them during 18 long years, when the Leader of the Opposition introduced the poll tax and the Tories put VAT on fuel, for example. If any group of people in our society know about the value and importance of money and of living within one's means, it is our pensioners. They know that the Tories cannot spend money that they do not have.

Alistair Burt: Why does not the Minister talk about the 5 billion that has been taken away from the pension funds every year since the Chancellor took office? How much does that add up to now and what difference does he think that that has made to pensioners?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I will tell him more about what the Government have done for pensioners and the very substantial increases in income that pensioners have enjoyed, which is in marked contrast to what happened when the Conservative party was in power.
	The Tories cannot spend money that they do not have. No one has to take my word for it. The latest edition of the Municipal Journal has considered the matter in its usual impartial way and it described the Tory party's plans for efficiency savings to pay for its so-called council tax discount as pie in the sky. That is what local government experts think about its calculations. Pensioners know that, if the Tories win power, the only cut that pensioners and council tax payers can rely on is 35 billion of cuts. The Tories cannot find those cuts from waste, because our plans already assume substantial efficiency savings as a result of the Gershon review. The Tories are double counting the savings that we have already allocated for reinvestment in front-line services.

John Hayes: Does the Minister regret the increase in means-testing under the Government? Does he acknowledge that those pensioners least likely to take up means-tested benefits tend to be older pensioners and poorer pensioners, often overlapping groups? Why does he reject the Conservative policy of restoring the earnings link for the state pension?

Nick Raynsford: For reasons that I will describe in a moment. Pensioners have benefited substantially from increases in living standards under this Government far greater than could possibly be delivered by the Conservative party's policies.
	The Tories have also made more than 15 billion of additional spending commitments, which means that they have to find an additional 15 billion of cuts elsewhere. That gives a total of more than 50 billion of cuts by 201112. Again, I say that the only cut that pensioners and hard-working families will get from the Tories is cuts to hospitals, the police, schools and services delivered to their local communities.
	I said that I intended to spend some time on Tory cuts, and I have not finished yet. Let us look in detail at how the Conservative party intends to pay for its pie-in-the-sky council tax discount. It says that it can find the money from the 1 billion that it claims that it has found from the cost of local government inspection. It claims that it will abolish inspection, although the Leader of the Opposition told the Local Government Association in July that
	we will be consulting on what should take its place.

Caroline Spelman: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Lady will contain herself, I will give way in a moment.
	The Conservative party does not include in its spending proposals any costs for the alternative that it intends to put in place. To the best of my knowledge, it has not even begun the consultation promised by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Lady, when I give way to her, will tell us when this consultation is due to begin.

Caroline Spelman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because since we announced our discount for pensioners, he has deliberately misunderstood this point. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has costed the pensioner discount at 1.3 billion, which will come out of central Government waste. The 4 billion from waste in local government identified in the James review will remain with local government to use as it sees fit. Among other things, it will be used to hold down council tax for people of all ages. The pensioner discount will come from the 4 billion identified by the shadow Chancellor within 35 billion of savings in central Government. I rest my case.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady has compounded the problem by showing the Conservative party's utter confusion. Its figures are not credible and it uses them in different combinations that make no sense. The overall effect is an unaffordable series of pledges and promises that they do not have the money to deliver. The prospectus is entirely bogus and comes from a party that has lost all sense of reality and that no longer faces the realities of government, which any party must do when it is in government.

Edward Davey: Has the Minister talked to any of the 235,000 civil servants who would lose their jobs under the James review? Has he asked how much the redundancy payments would cost? Does he think that those civil servants are pleased by Conservative policy?

Nick Raynsford: I shall do no more than quote the Municipal Journal, which states:
	There must be an awful lot of civil servants sitting around drinking tea, judging by the Conservatives' latest expensive pledge on public spending.
	The series of estimates is not credible.
	The 1 billion figure quoted by the Conservative party comes from a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report in September 2001, which the Conservative party claims estimates the annual direct costs of inspection at 600 million per annum. It then adds to that figure an estimate of 400 million that the Local Government Information Unit came up with for compliance costs.
	The Conservative party is wrong. The Office of Public Services Reform estimates that the total cost of all inspectorates is around 600 million, but as hon. Members know, many inspectoratesfor example, the Healthcare Commission and four out of five criminal justice inspectoratesdo not inspect local authorities. Even for those inspectorates that do inspect local government, local government inspection makes up only a small proportion of their overall costs. For example, the bulk of Ofsted's costs relate to school inspections, not local authorities. My Department's initial and provisional estimates of the total cost of local government inspection in 200405 is just more than 90 million.
	Even if one were to accept the indirect costs of inspection given by the LGIUI have yet to see proper evidence supporting those figuresthe Opposition's sums do not add up. Are they proposing that we should abolish all inspections? Are they proposing that we should abolish Ofsted or the Commission for Social Care Inspection, and, if we were to do so, what would be the implications for school standards or child protection? Even those cuts do not bring them anywhere near their 1 billion pie-in-the-sky saving. Their figures have no credibilitynot a shredand that example is just one of many. Their pie-in-the-sky discount for pensioners for council tax bills has no credibility. They simply do not have the means to deliver their promise, which is a cruel deception.
	The Tory cuts would force local authorities to hike council tax massively. As the Tories oppose capping, they would presumably allow council tax to rise unchecked year on year. If there were another Tory Government, pensioners would face cuts in services and uncontrolled increases in council tax.
	Unlike the Conservative party, this Labour Government care about pensioners and have been working hard to raise pensioners' living standards. This Labour Government reduced VAT on fuel to help pensioners and gave free TV licences to the over-75s. This Labour Government introduced 200 winter fuel payments to all households containing someone aged 60 or over, with an extra 100 for those aged 80 or over. This Labour Government added the 100 payment for households with a member over the age of 70 to help meet council tax costs. This Labour Government introduced the minimum income guarantee for pensioners and the pension credit to give extra help to those with savings and modest occupational pensions.
	The effect of Labour's reforms has been to increase the average income for pensioners by 1,350 a year, and to increase the income of the poorest pensioners by 1,750 a year. Do those hon. Members who criticise the Government on means-testing seriously think that it was wrong to give that extra help to the poorest pensioners? The Conservatives opposed all those achievements and they threaten all those benefits. Their hollow rhetoric and dishonest promises will not convince pensioners, who know more than anyone else that money does not grow on trees and that one should never promise what one does not have the means to deliver. Pensioners, more than any other section of society, know the importance of prudent economic management and not pretending that one can live beyond one's means. Along with this House, they will reject the Tory party's blandishments with contempt.

Edward Davey: We are right to keep debating council tax in this House, because it is the most unfair major tax in Britain today, and because it causes huge problems. We all know that the council tax is bust, which is why the Government set up the balance of funding review and asked Sir Michael Lyons to examine the matter, and why we have seen so much unrest among pensioners in many communities throughout the country.
	Since we last debated council tax, two major issues have arisen: first, the Conservative party has a new policy, which, although it has been a long time coming, we can at least debate; secondly, the revaluation issue has occurred. I would like to spend a little bit of time on those new issues.
	If one examines Conservative policy, five facts leap out. First, the Conservatives intend to keep the unfair, discredited council tax system. Secondly, they would introduce a new unfairness into that system, which is a matter that I shall discuss at some length. Thirdly, they have forgotten all pensioners in Scotland and Wales, on whom they have obviously given up. Fourthly, as the Minister has said, the figures are unbelievablethe cheque will bounce because the costings are questionable at least and specious at most. Finally, if one compares the Conservative policy with other policesparticularly oursit is not generous to pensioners.
	The Conservatives have clearly nailed their colours to the mast of council tax. Given that the Leader of the Opposition introduced council tax and the ill-fated poll tax, it might have been embarrassing for him to renege on council tax.

Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No.
	The Conservatives have kept their commitment to the council tax, but that means that they have no long-term solution to the problem of local government finance, which the Government, to give them credit, are at least examining. We have heard nothing from the Conservatives about how they would deal with problems such as gearing.
	As we have heard from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the Conservatives are tied to a post-election council tax hike because they are committed to council tax revaluation, which is surprising, because we have all read the same Audit Commission report, which states that council tax is fundamentally flawed. They have made the mistake of keeping council tax.

Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Democrats chose to side with the Government when they were given three opportunities to vote against the rebanding? Were they trying to wreck the rebanding process?

Edward Davey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. Like the Minister, I refer him to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who moved an amendment to the Local Government Bill, which was not subject to a vote, on 11 February 2003, to introduce a five-yearly review of revaluation. The Tories in the other place U-turned on that policy, and Lord Hanningfield tabled an amendment to get rid of revaluation. In that debate, my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee said that the Tory spokesman
	identifies the problem but the solution is entirely wrong. Let us scrap council tax. That is all I need to say.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 977.]
	She was right. We oppose council tax revaluation because we want to get rid of council tax, and I hope that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will intervene on that point later.
	I want to move on to my next point about why the Conservatives' new policy is bad for pensionersat least for the 2 million pensioners who are paying council tax and would get absolutely no help from the Conservatives. The 2000 census for England and Wales gives the figures. Some 1.6 million pensioner households have a non-pensioner living with them. Of those, 400,000 have more than one pensioner living with them. I am not talking about the people who do not pay council tax and get council tax benefitof course, they will get no help from this policybut the 2 million people who are really suffering. Let me cite some cases.

Julian Lewis: rose

Edward Davey: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a minute, but he must recognise what his party's policy means.
	Some pensioner households are looking after adult disabled children, while some are being cared for by adult children, but they will get no help from the Conservatives. They are against families who are caring for each other: that is scandalous.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman is talking about my party's proposals and would expect me to know them in more detail. The regulations would obviously have to be framed when we come into government, but I want to make it clear that pensioner households with a disabled adult would not be precluded from being in receipt of the discount. Perhaps he is unaware of what has happened since the ruling that the Government had in the High Court regarding the winter fuel payments. Under a European directive, benefits cannot be discriminatory by genderthat is, against women aged 60 who enter retirement age before then; although according to the Government that will change in due course. That is why the joint age of 65 had to be chosen.

Edward Davey: It is interesting that the Conservatives are now blaming Europe for not being able to help our pensioners. That is really something. If they have changed their policy within the space of a week, they should have told their leader, whom I heard saying on Woman's Hour that pensioner households with adult disabled children would not get their benefits. The problem is that 42 per cent. of pensioners would get no help from the Conservatives.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman referred back to what is commonly known as the poll tax. Does he accept that one of the reasons why the poll tax ended up so disastrously was that where there were two or more wage earners in a household, that household as a whole paid an enormous amount of money in local taxation? Does he accept that under his system of a local income tax, the amount that a typical two-earner household in my constituency paid for local taxation purposes would increase by 721 per household, and by even more if there were more wage earners? Surely the answer is to compromisenot to have that burden on the wage earners but to have targeted help to the pensioners, which is precisely what the Conservatives recommend.

Edward Davey: The poll tax was fundamentally flawed: it was not related to ability to pay and was introduced completely incompetently and unadvisedly by the hon. Gentleman's party leader. Let me deal with his point about double earners. The Conservatives are saying that a household of full-time average earners would pay moreindeed, because they would be bringing in a household income of more than 51,000. That applies to fewer than 10 per cent. of households. The figures that the hon. Gentleman cited from his constituency are completely wrong. I know the New Forest, because my grandmother lived in that area, and incomes are nowhere near the level that he suggests. That suggests to me that he is completely out of touch with his constituents, which many hon. Members will not be surprised about.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has referred to some aspects of the Conservative proposals. As they are draftedalthough judging from the comments of the hon. Member for Meriden they may well have changed before this debate ends, as we are getting instant policy on the hoofBaroness Thatcher would receive the benefit, but a retired couple, one of whom is aged over 65 but the other is not, would get nothing at all. Is that, in his view, a fair assessment procedure?

Edward Davey: The Minister is right. It is completely unfair, and 2 million pensioners, many of them struggling, will ask why Baroness Thatcher is getting 500 from her successor as leader of the Conservative party, while they are not.

Julian Lewis: rose

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose

Edward Davey: I will give way in a second, but I want the next Conservative Member who intervenes on me to answer this question: what have they got against pensioners in Scotland and Wales that they refuse to give them any discount? I know that they are not doing very well in Wales in Scotland, but this policy shows that they have given up completely. [Interruption.] The Minister tells me that they are about to change their policy. It is quite possible that we could have three such changes in the course of my speech.
	The Minister rightly focused on the Conservatives' questionable costings, including the fact that inspection costs are completely overstated. As I said earlier, 235,000 civil servants would be laid off were the Conservatives' plans ever to come to fruition. In other words, the civil service would have 10 per cent. fewer employees than in 1997, after 18 years of cuts. That is a joke. I have to say to Conservative Front Benchers that if they are really telling the electorate that they plan to sack those people to create money for the first year to provide this discount, that lacks any credibility whatever.

Eric Pickles: I should like to put the Baroness Thatcher point to bed. As she lives in Westminster, which has a Conservative-controlled council, she would receive only a 227 discount. With regard to Scotland, the Scottish Conservatives have announced a reduction in council tax of a third through paying education directly, and have also agreed to adopt our scheme.

Edward Davey: We will look with interest at the Scottish Conservative party's costings, because if they are anything like those of the Conservative party in England, they will not be worth the paper they are written on.

Julian Lewis: rose

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose

Edward Davey: I am not going to give way.
	The Minister compared the Conservatives' policy with the Government's, so let me do likewise in respect of our policy. Under the Liberal Democrats' plans for local income tax, some pensioners will gain more than 1,000 a yeardouble the maximum that the Conservatives offer. Liberal Democrat plans for local income tax would benefit 3 million more pensioners than the Conservative plans, with 3.2 million pensioners better off by more than 500 a year.

Adrian Sanders: Is it not the case that under our policy, unlike the Conservative policy, low-paid households would gain?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Interestingly, Christine Melsom from the IsItFair campaign has said:
	The Tories' proposals will do nothing to help the many younger people on low incomes who are already struggling with the effects of previous increases.
	The Conservatives' policy is opportunist and unprincipled, and does not even do what they say it is trying to do. The Conservatives plan to help 5 million pensioners, but the average pensioner couple in that group would be 100 better off under our local income tax plans. We are looking forward to debating this with the Conservatives, because pensioners will much prefer our proposals.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to nail the issue of the five-year revaluation. As the hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee, will remember, the Local Government Bill was huge and hundreds of amendments were tabled. The amendment was not pushed to the vote because it was a probing amendment and we had heard what the Minister had to say about it.
	On a different matter, did the hon. Gentleman see last Sunday's Politics Show, in which the BBC consulted a Liberal website and found a household of three relatively modestly earning public servants who will be more than 800 each worse off under his party's proposals? What does he have to say about that? His   colleague the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was left burblingall he could say was that the website must be wrong.

Edward Davey: I have examined the example closely because I was worried about the reports that I heard. It appears that the household in question had a combined income of 100,000. I know that the Conservatives are worried about well-off households, but it is interesting that they are not concerned about people on low incomes. Liberal Democrats are worried about those on low incomes and we will stand up for them because we believe in fairness.

Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I have not finished answering the question that the hon. Member for Cotswold asked. He described an amendment that he tabled as probing. I have a copy of Hansard for the relevant debate, and probing never crossed his lips. That is especially interesting.

Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: I shall, because it might help the hon. Gentleman's blood pressure.

Julian Lewis: I am delighted to hear that, but it will not help the blood pressure of my constituents in the New Forest, with which I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has a connection. The 721 extra was calculated according to Liberal Democrat figures, which appear to mislead everyone. He refers to households of perhaps four people on incomes of 25,000 or less each and asks whether they should contribute more. I have news for himthey all pay income tax nationally. Why should they pay local income tax, too? If there is anything wrong with the income tax that they pay, let it be adjusted nationally. Liberal Democrats' local income tax proposals will slaughter people on relatively low incomes.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is completely off beam. He should read the report of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, which Conservative Front Benchers cited earlier. It shows that our policy is massively progressive and helps all those in the first six and seven deciles of income distribution. The people who would lose are in the top two deciles. He talks about our figures. If he calculates the average earnings of households in his constituency on his figures, the result will be more than 60,000. That is the sort of figure on which Conservative calculations are based. Clearly, he needs to do some more arithmetic.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman says that the wealthy would lose and the poor would gain under his proposals. However, he has not tackled the point that foreign nationals in this country who pay no national income tax but pay council tax would not pay local income tax and would thus get their local services free, whereas trainee nurses, who do not pay council tax, would pay local income tax. Is not that a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich?

Edward Davey: Student nurses can be protected through extra bursaries. I did not realise that there were so many foreign millionaires. The Chancellor said that he would ensure that they paid their fair dues, and I support him on that.
	Revaluation is the next new factor in the council tax debate, because it is imminent. It is happening in Wales now, and if the Labour party or the Conservative party wins the election, revaluation will go ahead. If we win, we will get rid of the tax altogether. The Minister, in his usual charming way, tries to claim that we can wait until Sir Michael Lyons reports, and that there is nothing to worry about. He says that we must wait till 1 April to know the figures for 2005. We are looking forward to knowing those figures, because they should make for an interesting press release from the Halifax building society at the beginning of an election campaign. However, the Minister cannot get away with refusing to state Labour party policy between now and 5 May. He and his colleagues will be harried by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the media until they give an answer. People want to know what constitutes the ticking time bomb, to use the phrase that the hon. Member for Meriden stole from me.
	I was especially interested to hear Conservative Members' statements today. They have been welcome because at least they have been up front and clear for the first time and said that they support a revaluation. I hope that they will explain how they propose to revalue.
	It is worth reminding hon. Members of the damage that revaluation can do. The Minister claims that revaluation in England would not be like that in Wales. However, I must stress that Welsh people will have to pay those council tax bills this April. Many people will experience huge increases. In Cardiff, the council tax for 64 per cent. or more of households will increase by one or more bands, whereas it will decrease for only 2 per cent. Some of those increases through the rebanding exercise will happen in the poorest wards in Cardiff. There is therefore no relation between the increases and ability to pay. The council tax for some pensioners whom I met when I was last in Cardiff will increase by three or more bands. I met one person who explained that the council tax for one property had increased by six bands. That is the extent of the pain that may be created through the exercise.
	The Government may say that revaluation in England will not be like that in Wales, but we want to know what it will be like.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman heard the Minister say that the revaluation exercise would be revenue neutral in overall terms. However, he knows that, because of the way in which resource equalisation works, it can be hugely redistributive. The Minister did not give a commitment, either in the proceedings on the Local Government Act 2003 or today, that the exercise would be neutral in distribution terms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is worrying?

Edward Davey: It is worrying, and that is why we want to scrap the tax. That is the best answer to that question.
	Hon. Members need to focus on what rebanding means. A move from band D to band E means an increase of 22 per cent. in council tax. A move from band G to band H means an increase of 20 per cent. No move from any band is less than 13 per cent. The rebanding exercise will therefore lead to significant increases, with no relation to income. All the changes under rebanding are effectively random and arbitrary. Changes in people's bills are unrelated to changes in their circumstances. We believe that if local taxes are to be changed, it should be done on a principlethat of fairness. That is why we want to scrap the council tax.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: One of the key difficulties with the hon. Gentleman's local income tax proposals is that they will have to be redistributive. How will he tackle the fact that the tax base in the south of England would have to pay for the north of England?

Edward Davey: No grant or local government finance system that any party has ever espoused is without some form of redistribution. That applies to the council tax system, a local income tax system and the poll tax system.

David Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, because I want to make some progress.
	We have had silence from the Labour party about revaluation in England, and Conservative denial, except on one point. The Conservatives said that if they undertook revaluation there would be no new bands. That will be especially interesting for the 4.5 million households in band A. The figure may be higher because one of the helpful questions that the hon. Member for Meriden tabled this year elicited the response that there are 5.5 million households in band A. They will get no relief from the Conservative approach to revaluation. It appears that the 121,000 households in band H would get relief under Conservative proposals. The Conservatives are committed to not only an unfair council tax and an unfair revaluation but to the most unfair revaluation imaginable.
	Our proposal for local income tax is based on a clear principle. It is based on experience throughout the developed world, in America, Switzerland, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and other countries.
	We are grateful for the analysis of our policy that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy have undertaken. The IFS analysis shows that all the figures that we have published to date are spot on. Its estimate of an average local income tax was between 3.5 per cent. and 3.75 per cent. I said that our figure was 3.75 per cent. I was therefore being rather conservative with a small c. The IFS states that 73 per cent. of families would be better off or unaffected by our policy. We said that the figure was approximately 70 per cent. Again, I underestimated the number of people who would benefit from our policy.
	The second thing that the IFS said in its analysis was that the number of gainers would far outweigh the number of losers. Its press release says:
	there would be many fewer losers than gainers from this reform.
	The analysis goes through the different family groups, showing that families would gain. On average, the IFS says, families in the bottom eight decile groups of income distribution would gain, which Labour Members should support. Single-earner couples would gain on average 4.56 a week, while those with children would gain 2.69, and half of two-earner couples would gain as well. This is a family-friendly policy. Around 8 million pensioners would also gain, with 6.7 million gaining at least 1 a week. Only 4 per cent. of pensioners would lose, and they are the wealthiest, the ones being given 500 by the Tories. The average pensioner couple would gain 8.46 a week, which is an annual tax cut of 440.
	I was delighted by those figures. They show that what we have said all along is correct. The figures coming out elsewhere, particularly from the Conservatives, are a total fabrication and completely unrepresentative of real, ordinary families in our country. They are talking about the top 3 to 5 per cent., not ordinary families.
	The third thing shown by the IFS analysis is that scrapping council tax for a local income tax is extremely progressive. Our policy is by far the fairest. The people who would gain are the large majority on ordinary incomes. They are the people on low and modest incomes who have been struggling to get by. I am proud to have fought our campaign, and I am proud that we have the fairest policy. I find it odd that some Labour Members have criticised that, and it is worth noting that the Labour Front Bench has not totally rejected our policy but has put it into Sir Michael Lyons's remit so that he can have a look at it. That has not been done in a way that we would have supported, but the Government clearly do not think our policy is as bad as their rhetoric sometimes suggests.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman states that in the first year of his new local income tax, income tax rises would not be above 3.75 per cent. On his website calculations, that will be achieved by allocating 1.7 billion from the proceeds of a new top rate of income tax. Is he prepared to commit himself today to continuing to put that money in and to inflating it each year in order to stop the gearing effect applying after year one? If local authorities wish to raise the tax in a second and third year to keep their services going, without that guaranteed support they will have to raise local income tax by a factor of two or three times the 3.7 per cent. that he has calculated for the first year.

Edward Davey: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. When we publish our costed proposals, he will see the money going through all the five years of the next Parliament. In year one, the figure is not 1.7 billion, but 2.3 billion, and if the website needs updating, I will happily do that.
	I am also happy with the CIPFA analysis of our policy. CIPFA recently published a report, Local Income Tax Exemplified, which, interestingly, had a new idea on how to administer local income tax. This is an idea that I had not come across before, and thatthis will be interesting for the MinisterCIPFA did not include in its report on the balance of funding. In that report, CIPFA explained how the Inland Revenue could administer local income tax and said that the policy of scrapping council tax and replacing it with local income tax would yield nearly 300 million a year in savings on administration, as we had said previously.
	However, in its latest report, CIPFA comes up with an idea that would bring even more savings and make local income tax even easier and quicker to implement than our first analysis implied. By suggesting that the Inland Revenue build any individual local income tax rate into the personal income tax allowance, CIPFA has come up with a method of administering local income tax through the existing pay-as-you-earn codes, which, to use its words,
	would dispense with the need for any additional work by employers in administering the PAYE system.
	Having read that report, I have had further discussions with CIPFA, which suggest that its new method would make it even easier than we had first thought to levy local income tax, not just at the principal authority level but at district and indeed parish and town level.  I hope that the Minister will consider that idea, which would significantly change the conclusions of the balance of funding review to be even more favourable to local income tax.

Nick Raynsford: How would the hon. Gentleman's party intend to deal, if that proposal were adopted, with those who are not within the PAYE system, including a large number of very wealthy people who receive income from investments and dividends?

Edward Davey: Those 9 million people have always been the easiest to deal with, as the CIPFA report shows for the balance of funding review, so I am surprised that the Minister makes that point. An end-of-year return makes it much easier to operate a local income tax.
	This has been an interesting debate, giving us the chance to expose the Conservative policy and to explain how the Government have misused the council tax system. It has also given us a chance to demonstrate that the IFS and CIPFA analyses, by independent groups, show that local income tax is by far the best and most effective policy on offer. We go into the next election with two parties wanting to keep council tax and one wanting to scrap it. We go into the election with two parties wanting to revalue everyone's homes for council tax and one party wanting to stop that revaluation. There is a clear choice, a choice of fairness, and I know which way the people are going to vote.

Martin Salter: It is a matter of some regret that the three Front-Bench spokespeople have between them taken so much time. To be blunt, all three have been unnecessarily indulgent, and I shall take no interventions and be as brief as possible to allow other Members to speak.
	The council tax is the sonor, in these politically correct days, the daughterof the poll tax. It was brought in in a blind panic by the previous Deputy Prime Minister. To fund the expenditure gap, value added tax, one of the most regressive taxes known to mankind, was increased from 15 to 17.5 per cent. Council tax is not a tax of which we can be proud, although its introduction in place of poll tax saw the end of Margaret Thatcher, which happened on one of the happiest days of my political career.
	The fact that council tax was introduced in such a hurry meant that, in their essence, the valuations were hurried. In fact, at the time, they were referred to as second-gear valuations. Estate agents and valuers, employed quickly by local authorities and valuation offices, drove around communities in second gear deciding which row of houses were in bands B, C, D, A and whatever.
	Perhaps the most popular I ever became in my 12 years as a councillor was when I uncovered fundamental flaws in the banding assessment for the Newtown part of Park ward, which I represented. We were able to get about 2,000 properties re-banded from band C down to band B. If there is anything that the public likeas the Conservatives' current policy indicatesit is being handed money back. The fact that my endeavours got back 65 for each council tax payer in my ward is something that will stay with me for some time.
	In a debate on council tax, it is fair to look at how councils of different political persuasions have sought to implement it. We should also ask what value for money they give. My constituency is known as Reading, West, but it includes 24,000 electors in west Berkshire, which, as we all know, has one of the worst-performing Liberal Democrat councils. Sadly, I have to say to the Minister that it is very well rewarded for that; its revenue support grant is some 11.1 per cent. We have certainly rewarded incompetence in west Berkshire.
	West Berkshire council uses the 24,000 electors who actually live in the Greater Reading area but fall under the local authority boundaries as little more than a milch cow to raise funds. The difference between the standard service in a Labour-controlled authority such as Reading and the service provided by West Berkshire council is pretty stark. Pensioners in west Berkshire do not benefit from free bus travel, as there is a derisory token system that runs out after a couple of months for the regular bus traveller.
	Even worse, more recently, West Berkshire Liberals have taken the extraordinary decision to use up to 900,000 of council tax payers' money to subsidise a privately operated cinema in the centre of Newbury and Thatcham. It is a cinema that most of my constituents in Reading, West who fall under the West Berkshire council area will probably never see, never mind use. That is an extraordinary decision to use 900,000 of council tax payers' money as a subsidy.
	I want to address the Conservative plans, because council tax is historically a Tory tax. It is a flawed tax that depends on too narrow a base. I make no mistake about that, and I look forward to the outcome of the Lyons review. It is fair to use an Opposition day debate to analyse the effect on council tax levels of the Opposition spending plans. I have with me a copy of the Conservatives' expenditure strategy for 2005 to 2008, which is snappily entitled, Better public services, better value: Conservative spending plans 200508. The Conservatives have scored a massive own goal in publishing those plans.
	The Tories propose a cash freeze on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. They are pledged to match this Government's expenditure plans over the next three years on education, health and police. There is no doubt or argument about that, but that is not the case when it comes to the amount that will be available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister through the revenue support grant to local authorities. According to the Conservatives' own figures, the budget for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would rise by a mere 1 per cent. by 2008. It would now be frozen for the next two years, and in the final year of the three-year period, it would rise by 1 per cent. from 39.4 billion to 42 billion. That must be set against the current comprehensive spending review expenditure pledge to increase the figure to 50.7 billion by 2008 under this Government.
	That is a massive cut, and it would have an impact on council tax levels. It is a sad fact of life that Parliament and the country have not yet woken up to the impact on council tax of the ODPM Tory cash freeze. Council tax would go through the roof.

Patrick Hall: Is not the position with regard to the Opposition's spending plans even worse than my hon. Friend has outlined? By 201112, we would have had 35 billion of cuts year on year. Would that not put even more pressure on local government?

Martin Salter: I am sure that it would, but let us concentrate on the three years for which we have published figures and on the facts before us. Let us ensure that the Conservative party stands condemned by its own statements.
	The impact of the Conservatives' flawed policy on council tax bills in England and Wales is simply horrendous. It works out at a massive 4.2 billion cut in revenue support grant for every single local authority in England and Wales. I am no expert in local government finance, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who is also my office mate and a former local government Minister, undoubtedly is, and I pay tribute to his work on this issue. We have taken a look at the impact on council tax in the south-east. Sadly, because he is no longer a Ministerin my view, he should be[Interruption.] He should not necessarily be a Minister at the current Minister's expense. Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test does not have a bevy of special advisers or civil servants to do his number crunching, so we have prepared numbers only for the whole south-east. I think that they are worth reading into the public record.
	The average increase for the 13 south-east unitary authorities as a direct result of the proposed 4.2 billion cut in the ODPM budget for revenue support grant would be a massive 44.29 per cent. over the next two years. For the 55 district councilsthis is worked out on the basis of billing districts and takes into account the fire and police precepts, as well as accounting preceptsthe increase is a massive 30.35 per cent. None of that allows for inflation, for which it would be perfectly accurate to add 5 per cent.
	Let me read into the public record some of the figures for council tax that the poor people in the following unitary authorities would have to bear if we were unfortunate enough to have a Conservative Government after the next election. Bracknell Forest would see a council tax increase of 21.6 per cent. in 200506, and of 33.4 per cent. in 200607. That would be a massive Tory tax rise of 55 per cent. Brighton and Hove would see increase of 35 per cent. over that two-year period. The Isle of Wight's council tax would increase by 25 per cent., and that of Medway by 41 per cent. The increase in Milton Keynes would be an incredible 59.28 per cent. Portsmouth's increase would be 33 per cent., while Reading's would be 50.48 per cent. Slough would see an increase of 44.68 per cent., and Southampton an increase of 41.48 per cent. Swindon's increase would also be 41.48 per cent. over the two years.
	The increase in west Berkshire would be 57.48 per cent.as if its council tax is not high enough alreadywhile Windsor and Maidenhead's increase would be 43.28 per cent. Wokingham would see an increase of 48.28 per cent. The average increase across the unitary authorities in the south-east of England would be 49.29 per cent. These increases represent an incredible tax burden for people to bear.
	The Conservatives' proposal to hand back to pensioners a little bit, or perhaps quite a substantial amount, of their council tax is clever politics, but one of the reasons why it is fundamentally dishonest is that the Conservatives have not come clean about how much the council tax will rise as a result of their expenditure plans. Their policy simply involves robbing Peter to pay Paul. Let us look at how it would work for band D council tax payers in Reading. The council there is not particularly profligateit certainly levies a council tax rate lower than that of west Berkshire, and lower than that in parts of Wokingham.
	Over the past three years, Reading borough council has kept council tax rises as low as possible, and I have to say that it has not been particularly favoured by the amount of Government grant that it has received. None the less, in 200304 council tax in Reading rose by 7.5 per cent., in 200405 by 3.7 per cent., and in 200506 by 4.75 per cent. Under a Conservative Government, however, there would be a 50 per cent. increase over the next two years. In cash terms, band D council tax would rise from the current level of 1,270 to a massive 1,902, so a 632 price tag is attached to voting Conservative in Reading, or in any other council tax-paying area.
	I hope that the Minister will help me and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test to ensure that every pensioner and council tax payer in the country is made well aware of the consequences of the Conservatives' fundamentally flawed and dishonest policy.

Malcolm Moss: Since this Government came into office, council tax bills have risen by an average of 70 per cent. throughout England and Wales. I trawled through some statistics from my own area and the area around the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who will no doubt respond to the debate later. Corby's council tax has increased by 71 per cent. over that period, Kettering's by 72 per cent., Leicester's by 88 per cent., Milton Keynes's by 73 per cent., Peterborough's by 83 per cent., Cambridge's by 77 per cent., Great Yarmouth's by 95 per cent., and Northampton'sclose to the Minister's patch againby 71 per cent. Similar figures apply across the board, across all councils of whatever political persuasion. That is the result of Labour's policy on local government funding.
	In 2004, the average band D council tax bill in England was 1,167, up from 689 back in 199798. As we have heard today, further tax hikes are expected after the election, due to the black hole in the Government's funding of local councils, just as happened after the 2001 general election. Calculations suggest that council tax bills will top 2,000 by the end of a Labour third term.
	Much was made of the additional money from the Chancellor, announced in his pre-Budget report, of 1 billion this year to help to keep council tax as low as possibleobviously with the election in mindbut we now discover that 350 million of that is money announced last year and 350 million is ring-fenced money, which will not be distributed evenly across councils throughout the country. That leaves new money of about 250 million for distribution.
	Under this Government, pensioners have lost over a third of their pension increase in higher council tax. For typical single pensioners, 40 per cent. of their basic state pension increase has been snatched back in higher council tax, with pensioner couples losing a third of the rise in soaring council taxes.
	To take another measurement of Government policy on council tax receipts, the increase in such receipts under this Government is about 9 billionfrom 11 billion in 199798 to 19.7 billion last year. So, there has been a hike in council tax receipts of almost 80 per cent., which is equivalent to about 3 per cent. on the basic rate of income tax. One problem with this Government is that they claim each year that they are giving additional increases and above-inflation increaseswe heard that from the Minister todaybut they do not convey to the House the fact that a lot of the money in terms of the global increase is specific grant money, which is ring-fenced. The figure some years ago was 15 per cent., but the Minister recently announced that it is to drop to, I think, 13 or 13.5 per cent.

Nick Raynsford: Nine per cent.

Malcolm Moss: That tells me that the Government have accepted the mistake that they made and that they are reining back on the specific grants, which go to pet projects, usually in Labour areas.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss: No. I have been told that I have to finish fairly soon to let other hon. Members speak.
	I want to refer to my constituency, North-East Cambridgeshire, and to Fenland district council, which occupies most of that territory and which was capped last year in a way that I consider spiteful, unnecessary and unwarranted. The facts of the matter are that last year Fenland district council had 420,000 withheld or clawed back under the floors and ceilings policy, while this year the amount is 360,000, which went to help those on the so-called floor.
	The formula uses sparsity factors, deprivation indices and other factors to determine the grant requirement. In effect, therefore, the Government are on the one hand saying that my council area requires a certain amount to deliver services in a rural area with deprivation and sparsity problems, but on the other are taking back a considerable amount of that money. They then have the audacity to say, We said you needed the money. We haven't given it to you, but you are increasing your council tax above a rate that we deem necessary. Therefore, we are going to cap you.
	The bill paid in Fenland is, on average, the lowest in Cambridgeshire, 83 lower per dwelling than the county average, more than 60 lower than the English average and more than 130 lower than the shire district average. So, under no count can one conclude that the council tax payers of Fenland pay more than those in many other equivalent banded properties in adjoining constituencies, or for that matter in shire districts throughout the country.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	The problem for councils such as Fenland is that a huge proportion of their properties are in the lower bands. For example, nearly 85 per cent. of Fenland's properties are in bands A, B and C. That is a remarkable statistic for a Conservative constituency, but it is the reality. So, it costs Fenland far more to raise extra finance on council tax than it would neighbouring districts. I believe that it will require about 2 on council tax in Fenland, while neighbouring Cambridgeshire districts will need to charge only an extra 1 to raise the equivalent amount.
	Nominating a few councils for capping last year was a spiteful exercise on the Government's part. It was of course intended to set a clear standard for this year, with an election coming up. The stick that the Government wielded then, plus the carrot produced by the Chancellor with his extra funding, mean that most council tax increases will be about 4 or 5 per cent., which is what the Government intended all along. They can announce that figure in the run-up to the election.
	The Minister mentioned two Cambridgeshire councils, Huntingdon and South Cambridgeshire. For many years they imposed very small increases; on one occasion I think there was no increase at all. They were able to do that partly because they had sold off housing stock and had money in their capital accounts, but it is not possible to cushion the blow for ever, as the Minister well knows. Indeed, he is nodding. There comes a time when a council must put back its tax base. Huntingdon is now proposing an increase of, I think, 13.7 per cent., and South Cambridgeshire has said that it must increase the district element of council tax by 100 per cent. It will still be the case that neither council will have an average band D tax higher than that of any other shire district.
	I want to say a little about the rebate that we promised to pensioners. This is extremely good news for my pensioner constituents. The constituency has an elderly population, and some 10,500 pensioner households will benefit from a 500 rebate. I congratulate my colleagues, including those on the Front Bench, on that extremely helpful suggestion.

Clive Betts: When we debate local government finance here, the problem with the Conservatives is that they believe that history began in 1997. They conveniently forget everything that went before: the poll tax, the problems with rate-capping and the massive cuts in grant faced by local authorities, not just during the four years before the 1997 election but throughout the 1980s.
	Whose council tax is it anyway? Given the way in which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) introduced the debate, no one would believe that it was introduced by a Conservative Government. I happen to think that it was probably one of the better things that the Conservative Government did during their 18 years in office. I think it is a reasonable tax that is now in need of some reform, and that is precisely what the Government are trying to do. It would, in my view, be entirely illogical not to impose any tax on the most valuable asset that people own, whose value has increased so much over the past few years.
	The Government have sensibly established a balance of funding review and the Lyons inquiry into the funding of local government. We must address the fact that because the business rate is linked to inflation, an increasing burden is being imposed on council tax to fund local services. I hope that Sir Michael Lyons will consider that. I would not oppose a local income tax in addition to council tax for larger councils, which the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has recommended, but proper research is needed so that we know what the impact would be. We need significant reform of council tax benefit for owner-occupiers, which is the one benefit that is not taken up by about half the people who are eligible for it. We need a campaign to deal with that, but perhaps we should also think again about some form of tax credit to replace the benefit.
	We also need to look at the bands. I think that we should have more at the top, and split band A at the bottom. Given a system of rebanding and a substantial increase in the take-up of the council tax benefit to which people are entitled, council tax would become a progressive form of taxation. The figures are there to show that.

Patrick Hall: On the future of the council tax, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a serious case for looking at regional variations in the bandings?

Clive Betts: When revaluation is done, we will certainly have to consider at a regional level the way in which assistance is given. Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that issue, and the Government will come back to it.
	My right hon. Friend did an excellent demolition job on the pie-in-the-sky proposals from the Conservatives that he identified. The reality is that in costing the Conservatives' scheme, the Institute for Fiscal Studies did not confirm that the necessary funding would be available. That is a crucial difference and we have to get it on the record. If the Conservatives are seriousshould they come to powerabout preserving education and health services and the police, the massive weight of their cuts would fall on local government. They would fall on maintenance of the roads, which they claim to be interested in. They would fall on litter collection and the maintenance of open spaces, and on libraries, leisure services and the fire service. Those services are at the top of the list of people's priorities, and we need to emphasise time and again that they would be cut substantially under the Conservatives' proposals. The environment in which people live and the services that they receive are crucial to the way in which they feel about local government.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Clive Betts: I am afraid that I will have to decline as I am on a strict time limit. I want to make progress so that I can allow others who have been present throughout the debate to get in.
	The worst criticism that I can offer of the Conservatives' proposals is that they are worthy of the Liberal Democrats' unfunded and uncosted proposals at their worst. During his response, my right hon. Friend made a point that I particularly welcomed. There was some concern in local government circles that the 1 billion would be a one-off sum and that next year, local government would be left to deal with the mess. I am pleased that he dealt with that issue, and local government will be somewhat reassured by what he had to say.
	I have two final points to make about the Opposition parties' proposals. The Liberal Democrats say that they have done the research and the costings and that local income tax will achieve various things. However, during his speech the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) gave away something that also emerged when the Liberal Democrat leader of Somerset county council appeared before our Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that any form of taxation needs its own form of grant distribution. When challenged, the leader of Somerset council had to admit that, on a like-for-like basis and without any change to the grant regime, local income tax in Somerset would not be affordable for many families. She said that the council would need a substantial increase in grant.
	Frankly, if the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has not calculated how he would distribute grant, he cannot say precisely how much people would have to pay in local income tax, compared with council tax. [Interruption.] He is mouthing silently that the Liberal Democrats have made those calculations, but I certainly have not seen them on his website. It will be interesting to see them in due course.
	The hon. Member for Meriden put a great deal of emphasis on the fact that she opposes means-testing, but let us consider the Conservatives' proposed council tax discount for pensioners, according to my understanding of it. Those pensioners who currently pay no council tax because they get a full discount would get no discount from her. Those whose council tax is partly covered by council tax benefit would get only part of her discount. However, those who would get the full discount include some of the richest, who live in some of the largest houses.

Caroline Spelman: Let me make the position clear. Somebody who receives 100 per cent. council tax relief is obviously not in need of any discount. For somebody who receives benefit providing partial council tax relief, the full discount would apply to the residue. They would get the full 50 per cent.

Clive Betts: The full 50 per cent. of what? Is it 50 per cent. of the council tax that they are paying or 50 per cent. of what they would be paying if they did not get any council tax benefit? It is completely unclear.

Caroline Spelman: To make it perfectly clear, let me explain the order in which the benefits stack. First, council tax benefit applies if someone is eligible for it; after the application of the benefit, a residual sum may remain. That residual sum is the one to which the council tax discount of 50 per cent. applies. If, in addition, the person concerned is eligible for the single person's discount, the full 25 per cent. is applicable. The benefits stack in that order: council tax benefit; single person's discount, if eligible; and, if there is any residue, the full 50 per cent. discount would apply.

Clive Betts: That is not perfectly clear. If people do not pay council tax because they receive the full benefit, they do not get the discount; if they pay part of their council tax, they will get part of the discount according to some rather unclear form of calculation. Some of the richest people living in some of the most valuable houses will receive the full amount of discount[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Meriden says that this is not means-testing, but her discount is linked to a means-tested benefitthe council tax benefitso the resulting discount must itself be means-tested, but means-tested in a wholly perverse way. It is, in fact, means-testing stood on its head. That is the charge that I level at the Conservative proposals. It is stood on its head, because the biggest discount goes to the people who have the most money and who live in the biggest houses. That is the reality.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I agree with only one thing that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) saidwe should keep our contributions short in order to allow other Back Benchers to speak. I have to say that the Minister for Local and Regional Government spoke for 43 minutes, but he said absolutely nothing and made no contribution of value to the debate.
	Speaking as a former county councillor, I pay tribute to the many councillors up and down the country who do tremendous work under great pressure, frankly, as a result of the extra demands put on them. My patch includes the Lancashire county council, which is Labour controlled and Ribble Valley, which is Conservative controlled. Of course, the people of Ribble Valley will not have to wait very longwe know the date at least of the county council electionsbefore they have a Conservative-controlled Lancashire county council that will be able to deliver effective policies on a much lower council tax than they currently pay.
	One matter on which we can all agree, irrespective of whether we have had experience on a council, is that the vast majority of people in this country simply do not understand local government finance. It is incredibly complex, yet so much of what the Government say these days depends on it. The Government are trying to use smoke and mirrors in order to confuse people, but funnily enough, one thing that does not confuse people is the demand that they receive through the letterbox. When they open up the letter, they see how much council tax they have to pay. On that matter, there is no confusion.
	For a band E property in Ribble Valley in 1997, people had to pay 746; today, they have to pay 1,206. There is no confusion there at all[Interruption.] The Minister knows perfectly well that biggest costs that people living in Ribble Valley will have to face will come from the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council. We hear a lot about the wonderful settlement that councils have had this year, but does not the Minister find it significant that, if we look back to the previous occasion on which a general election and county council elections were held virtually together, the council tax increase was pretty small, too? Subsequently, of course, council tax went up to a much higher level, but, lo and behold, what are we being told now? We hear that the deal this year is wonderful and that all the increases should be kept to a minimum. We are encouraged to rejoice that the increases in Ribble Valley may be only twice the rate of inflation. This is, as everyone knows, a general election year. People in Ribble Valley are pretty canny. They know that if a Labour Government are returned after the next general election, the increases in council tax will rise dramatically, just as they have doneby 70 per cent.since the Government came to power in 1997.
	I want to concentrate mainly on pensioners, but they are not the only ones to suffer. First-time buyers are also being clobbered one way or another. They are getting clobbered now because they have to pay stamp duty, which has not kept pace with inflation. Many people buying their first homes are truly being clobbered by it[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) even tries to intervene, I do not agree with any of the Liberal Democrat policies. As I say, people are clobbered at one level, and then the council tax comes in on top, and they are clobbered again.
	What the Government are attempting to do with their revaluations and rebanding is to introduce a very crude wealth tax. The Government should be far more intelligent about that.
	Part of the problem is that councils face so many extra demands. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) listed the various extra demands that have been put on councils, and my local council complains most about the pensions claw back. That has had a huge impact on Ribble Valley council, as expressed at a meeting last night about employee pension funds. The council has to find 120,000 for that next year. The year after it will be 190,000 and the year after that 260,000. Those sums will have a huge impact on the level of the council tax in Ribble Valley. I pay tribute to Councillor Richard Sherras, who proposed the motion last night to bring the issue to the Government's attention. It is not only Ribble Valley that will suffer, because all councils will have to find similar extra sums.
	Pensioners are a vulnerable group of people because many of them have to exist on fixed incomes. That is incredibly difficult, because they have to try to budget on the money that they know is coming in. However, from year to year, they do not have the faintest idea of the full impact of the council tax.
	Ribble Valley has seen a vast increase in the number of people aged over 65. In 1991, there were 15,578 and in 2001the latest year for which figures are availablethere were 18,801. As those people get older, they rely increasingly on the services that the county and borough councils provide for them. Some of the care homes in Lancashire have been closed recently and the care packages for elderly people have been reduced, at a time when demand has increased. Older people find that very worrying.
	Some of my constituents have lived in Ribble Valley for many years, they have brought up a family of three or four children, they have moved house two or three times and they now live in a big house. Although the children may have moved away, leaving one or two pensioners living there, that house holds the memories of their family, and it is appalling that they may be forced to sell that family home simply because the council tax has gone up 70 per cent. since 1997. Who can say how much further it will increase? If the Government win the election, such a property may even be rebanded.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend remember that pensioners in Ribble Valley had a significant increase in their council tax in 2002, because of the Government's poor funding of Lancashire county council, yet pensioners received only a 75p per week increase in pension?

Nigel Evans: Pensioners will look at all the issues in the round when it comes to the next general election. We have heard much from Labour Members in this debate about the new Conservative proposals that we will introduce after 5 Mayif that is the date of the election. It is only the date that is uncertain, not the outcome of the election. Many Labour MPs are worried about the election because our proposals are popular, as I know from talking to my constituents. People cannot wait to receive a reduction in their council tax of up to 500. Unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), they understand the proposals. We will make further proposals to assist pensioners, and the council tax reduction will be the jewel in the crown.

Alan Whitehead: Frankly, the Opposition motion is in essence an appalling confidence trick. I had something of a singalong Sound of Music moment during the speech with which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) opened the debate, because on consulting the Conservative party website this morning I saw that she had already made the speech; quite a lot of it was on the website. Sure enough, when I entered the Chamber later, there she was making it. Perhaps that underlines the relative priorities being adopted in the propaganda at the heart of this initiative, and how much the House appears to matter in the debate.
	There are two explanations for the deplorable trick that is being played. Either the hon. Lady knows what local government support the shadow Chancellor proposes, should the Conservatives be elected, in which case she is complicit in that deplorable trick, or she does not know, in which case she should consult what the shadow Chancellor says a few pages down on the website from where she has precipitately published the speech she made this afternoon, to see where the truth lies.
	The shadow Chancellor said last February:
	I have agreed with my Shadow Cabinet colleagues that the baseline for spending across all of these departmental budgets
	including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
	will be 0 per cent. growth for the first two years, followed by 2 per cent. growth per year for the remaining four years of the period covered by the strategy.
	That is a freeze for the first two years.
	Lest the hon. Lady says that that was last February, I point out that just two days ago the Conservatives posted the uprating of their medium-term strategy on their website and said:
	Last February, we set out our medium term expenditure strategy. The heart of that strategy is a path for public spending that is affordable . . . in this document we set out how we will achieve that affordable spending.
	Helpfully, on page 2 of that document is a table that sets out the three-year spending priorities. It is divided, also helpfully, into priority and non-priority areas. What every person who thinks about local government ought to know is that under the heading non-priority areas is Conservative future spending on local government. That spending, as last February's announcement by the shadow Chancellor shows, is to be frozen for two years, and is to rise by only 1 per cent. in real terms over three years.
	What does that mean? It may not mean a great deal to some people, but it actually means that some 4.2 billion will be sucked out of local government expenditure, with the result that that money will not go to local authorities.

Caroline Spelman: For the record, I had not finished writing my speech this morning. I think that what the hon. Gentleman saw on the website were the details of the proposal.
	On the financial question, of course local government spending includes the important elements of educationon which we are committed to above-inflation spending increasesthe health budget, with a read-across to social services provision, and police, on which we are committed to increasing spending. All those are elements of local government finance. In the same document, we identify more than 4 billion of savings within local government that could, of course, be used by local authorities, as they choose, to help with front-line services and so on.

Alan Whitehead: I am afraid that that will not do. The 4.2 billion loss over the three years would occur after taking account of the increases that the Conservatives have indeed suggested they would make in their education and health expenditure. As everyone knows, in the context of local government and council tax, that 4.2 billion loss can be made up only in one of two ways: either there must be a change to the system whereby the relationship between what is raised locally and what is provided centrally is augmented by other forms of local tax, in which case the gearing ratio is not so harsh; alternatively, if one wants to maintain services at the same level, having lost that amount of money, council tax must be raised, as day follows night. It is quite simple and straightforward.
	There are no Conservative proposals, as far as I am aware, for any change to how the council tax works, other than that the Conservatives apparently want rebanding, but not nasty rebanding. The Conservatives have two commitments: first, to keeping the council tax as the main source of raising revenue for local authorities; and, secondly, to reducing radically the amount that central Government put into local government, as set out in their medium-term expenditure plan.

David Taylor: Perhaps my hon. Friend was about to come on to the Conservatives' third commitment: the so-called council tax discount for pensioners. That would cost 1 billion, and although they say that it would be funded by savings, the latest edition of The MJformerly the Municipal Journalshot a hole in the bows of that by saying that such savings are pie in the sky. Does he agree with that assessment?

Alan Whitehead: I do.

Ronnie Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alan Whitehead: I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions because I have only a little time.
	Even if the Conservatives could make the savings that they claimI agree that they are pie in the skyand told pensioners that they could fund the scheme, what would be the effect of taking such money out of local government? We should compare their proposals with Labour's medium-term expenditure plans, which put it on record, in black and white, that such funding will increase by 17 per cent. over the same time period.
	What would be the effect of a 1 per cent. increase rather than a 17 per cent. increase? Owing to the gearing effect, local authorities that wished to keep their services at the same standard would have to increase their council tax by 4 per cent. for every 1 per cent. lost from central Government grant, which explains why, when the Conservatives introduced the council tax, they increased value added tax by 2.5 per cent. They did that so that they could pack the amount given by central Government and thus keep council tax rises lower. They would not be able to say that they were not warned about that effect or that they did not know about it.
	What would be the effect of the Conservatives' proposal in Southampton? Council tax would probably rise by about 40 per cent. over two years because of the loss of increased grant. That means that the council tax for an average band D property in Southampton would increase by about 600.

Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Whitehead: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	The Conservatives tell us that pensioners would receive 440, but they would have to pay an extra 50 per cent. council tax over that period. After taking inflation into account, all the money that the Conservatives would give pensioners under their phoney plan would be taken away from them due to the removal of money from local government, as identified in their medium-term expenditure plan.
	The Conservative proposal is a fraud that is unworthy of the people of this country. If the hon. Member for Meriden ever has the misfortune of trying to put the policy into practice, I urge her, before she becomes distressed, to consult the shadow Chancellor to find out whether he will change his policy. If she understands what his policy really means for local government, she should withdraw the proposal that she put before us today.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) for drawing attention to any distress on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I assure him that I see no distress on her face. Her clear exposition of our party's position was given with the authority and assurance that she will carry into her new position of local government Minister in due course.
	The debate is much concerned with figures, but the council tax represents more than that. We can use the debate to illustrate the way the Government go about their business more widely. They ride two waves with the British people, the first of which is disillusionment. There is a sense that they have squandered the good will with which they came to office. Those in professional and public service circles have a sense of their overbearing centralism, which prevents good professional officers from exercising their discretion and doing their work. The second wave that the Government ride is one of cynicism, which is born of the fact that the public do not trust them any more because there is sufficient evidence of their dishonesty. The council tax draws those two waves together.
	Let me give examples from the three authorities that I share the honour of representing. Bedfordshire county council has been given an extra 14.9 million, which no doubt the Minister for Local and Regional Government will trumpet. Some 11.6 million of that will be automatically passported to education, which leaves 3 million to deal with new legislative issues and unavoidable growth. Some 2.5 million is required for additional social services assistance, and there are demographic pressures in the area.
	An item called Supporting People used to be 100 per cent. funded by Government, but is now only partly funded, leaving a shortfall. Where will the extra money come from? The council must now pick up the costs for preserved rights and residential allowances, as no extra funding is available. Bedfordshire county council therefore needs to spend more of its own money, as costs are not accounted for by the Government, yet the Government trumpet their good will towards local government.
	Mid Bedfordshire district council was mentioned earlier. The guns of Whitehall are trained on it, because it proposes to make a 13.3 per cent. increase, which, as I told the Minister, equates to 1 a month. It is the 10th lowest rated district council of 238, yet the full might of Whitehall will be brought to bear on it for its unjustifiable activities in protecting its citizens. In a letter to the Minister dated 28 February, the leader of the council, Patricia Turner, raised the issue of what happens in growth areas. Mid-Bedfordshire is such an area, as the Government want to build many more houses there. Mrs. Turner said that
	this Council is in a designated growth area under the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy and we have experienced a tax base growth of 4.7 per cent. in 3 years, equal to 2190 properties. This growth is expected to continue. The calculation for grant distribution, however, applies a band D equivalent of about 180 for each new property to be set against the Formula Spending Share.
	The band D charge for mid-Bedfordshire, however, is 90, so Mrs. Turners says that
	the council effectively loses around 90 with every new property added when its FSS is reviewed.
	There are clearly pressures on Mid Bedfordshire council, yet it will fall foul of Government capping rules.
	There has been a 72 per cent. increaseeight times the rate of inflationin council tax in mid-Bedfordshire since 1997. At Bedford borough council, which covers part of my constituency, the increase has been 66 per cent. or seven times the rate of inflation over seven years. It calculates that even on the Government's own needs assessment, a further 237,000 should have been made available. It is concerned about issues such as the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003, as that is not fully funded and will add 1 per cent. to the costs of the council tax. It is worried about increased pressures for recyclinga good thingthat will add an estimated 7.7 per cent. to council tax costs. The council must bear those additional costs.
	The meanest cut for Bedford borough council is the loss of the disabled facilities grant. The Minister looks doubtful, but after our debate I shall give him a copy of a letter from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the council dated 28 February 2005. It says:
	For 2005/06 the share available for authorities in the East of England is 9,778,000, which represents a 2 per cent. reduction compared with the amount available for 2004/05.
	The disabled in Bedfordshire borough will receive less as a result of the Government's actions. The former director of the SHAC housing association is giving all his attention to Mid Bedfordshire district council, which is going to charge people an extra 1 a month, yet he shows little interest in whether or not the disabled people of Bedford borough face a reduction in the disabled facilities grant.
	As I said earlier, the Government are riding two wavesdisillusion and cynicism. We cannot trust everything that they say. I have given the example of three different councils that are trying to do their best under the Government. The statistics will be used to claim that they are receiving more money every week and, indeed, every day from the Government, but their own experience of rising costs affects what they can do with the money. Councillors and people who work in local government know that the figures are fiddled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, when the bill comes through the letter box people can see that they have been charged extra and that council tax has increased at a rate many times that of inflation since 1997. The Minister says that the Government are giving councils more money, and that the problem is with the councils. However, it is an insult to electors' intelligence to be told that this year's settlement does not have anything to do with the general election. Until Ministers stop treating the electorate with contempt the twin waves of disillusion and cynicism will go all the way to the Government's gravea moment that cannot come too soon.

David Borrow: Local government finance is, in some ways, straightforward. Local authorities have three sources of money. They get it from central Government in grant, the business rates and the domestic property tax. Those are the three sources that have existed in my adult lifetime. Until 1990, the level of the business rate and the domestic property tax were subject to decision by local authorities. Since 1990, the business rate has been decided by central Government and its rate has been fixed to inflation. The only flexibility that local authorities have is in the council tax.
	Today's debate has ignored the fact that we will not have stable, long-term local government finance until we give local authorities control over a bigger proportion of their revenue. The Tory proposal has a lot to commend it in terms of what it does for middle income and better-off pensioners, but for local government it shifts the balance in the wrong direction. It means that local government is more dependent on central Government finance than on revenue raised locally. The Lib Dems' solution of a local income tax ignores the gearing effect. Because there will not be the bill on the doorstep that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned, local authorities will be tempted to increase the proportion of the local income tax and mix it with the national income tax year by year in the hope that the increase will not be noticed.
	I am not necessarily against the concept of a local income tax, but it is only viable if we recognise that to throw away the benefits of a property tax would be stupid. We need to ensure that a property tax is at the core of local government taxation and that should be supplemented with other locally decided revenue raising sources, of which local income tax may be one. Current council tax levels are probably at the maximum that can be supported.
	Once we have the Lyons report, we need to deal with the serious issues of finding a long-term, cross-party solution to local government finance. I realise that we will not get it this afternoon, a few weeks or months away from a general election, but until we look in a grown-up way at giving local government a real opportunity to decide its own level of finance and be accountable to its local people, we will never solve the problem because, each year, the amount of revenue grant that local authorities receive will be decided by the pressures and strains within the Treasury. We must move away from that to give greater flexibility, power and freedom to local authorities. The Lyons report will be key to that, and it is about time that we discussed the matter in a more grown-up way.

Eric Pickles: If ever in the early hours of the morning my sleep became troubled by worries about whether the Conservative party had done the right thing with regard to the pensioners discount, those worries have long gone, because it is clear to me that both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are rattled by our proposal and realise that we are on to a winner. How else can one explain the grumpy performance today of the Minister, who is usually a ray of sunshine on these occasions? Perhaps the rumours are right. Perhaps he has realised that there is a problem with regard to pensioners and has lobbied the Chancellor to do something about that in the Budget. Only time will tell. Perhaps the Minister will be eating his words in a little while. It is clear that, despite the abuse and the talk about pie-in-the-sky figures, he realises that he faces an enormous problem after the election, either in having to explain why he has left such a lousy legacy for the Conservatives or in having to defend the rapid rise in council tax that CIPFA suggests.
	The Minister introduced a new definition of whether the Audit Commission is right or wrong in saying that its suggestion that increases in council tax are largely because of pressures placed on councils by central Government is wholly wrong. If the Audit Commission agrees with the Government, it is right; if it disagrees with them, it is wrong.
	The Minister ended his long speech by listing a load of things that the Government have done for pensioners. Unfortunately, he did not address the one fact that pensioners rememberone third of the increase in the state pension has disappeared because of council tax increases.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made a powerful case in discussing the increase in costs for council tax payers in Ribble Valley. He said that council tax has increased from 746 to 1,206 since 1997. From a sedentary position, the Minister says that that is because the example involves a Conservative council, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, Lancashire county council is controlled by the Labour party, which imposed those increases. I hope that my hon. Friend is right, and that we take control of Lancashire county council and reduce the cost of council tax.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) discussed the true effect on local authority expenditure of the squeeze by education spending on other forms of spending.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned the overbearing control of local authorities, which imposes an additional cost. In my small local authority, one comprehensive performance assessment costs 250,000, and when that figure is translated into council tax, it is multiplied by four. That council must collect 1 million and its budget is less than 12 million.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, which further underlines why the Labour party is in such a mess. Our proposals are clearprotection for education, protection for health and protection for law and order. On the elements outside that protection, local authorities will be able to apply 4 billion a year of savings to keep down council tax or to improve services.
	The Minister and the Government will be remembered for just one thing: on their watch, council tax increased by 76 per cent. For the first time, an average family in an average home will pay 100 a month in council taxan independent survey predicts that band D council tax will hit 1,214 in Englandbut eight short years ago, the average family paid 30 a month in council tax, which shows how viciously the Government have targeted it.
	The Government have managed to convert an earnest but dull property tax into an oppressor of pensioners, which is a mark of how cynically they have manipulated it.

Patrick Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that pressure on residential council tax payers has increased since the business rate was nationalised and increases were capped annually? Does he favour the relocalisation of the business rate?

Eric Pickles: I have to say that, if I were a Labour Member, the business rate would be the last thing that I mentioned, considering what revaluation means. The hon. Gentleman must already have constituents banging on his door telling him about the problem that they face with revaluation, and that is just a foretaste of what his party plans.
	We have been invited to believe that big increases in council tax are a thing of the past and that we have hit sunlit uplands where low-single-figure increases have become the norm. But surely we have been here before, within living memory. In 2001, there was an increase of 6 per cent., only to be followed by an increase of 8.3 per cent. in 2002 and 13 per cent. in the following year. The difference is the general election. Of course things will be reasonable before the general election, but we want to know about Labour's plans for after it. Before Labour was elected, the Prime Minister preached the importance of keeping council tax down, pledging limited rises and preventing big increases. We know what followeda 76 per cent. increase in council tax under this Government.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, we have already received expressions of concern, including a letter from Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart about the 1.5 billion black hole in the Government's spending plans. As he rightly points out,
	If local government is to continue to improve, it must no longer be left to stumble from one year to the next with last minute financial fixes from central government.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) clearly remains confused about whether he favours rebanding or not. He mentioned what his hon. Friend Baroness Hamwee said in the debate in another place. I quote:
	My Lords, the noble Lord identifies the problem but the solution is entirely wrong. Let us scrap the council tax. That is all I need to say.[Official Report, 17 July 2003; vol. 409; c. 977]
	Indeed, that is all she did say, so why do the Liberal Democrats favour rebanding? The last time the hon. Gentleman spoke he said that they did not, but this time he said that it was part of a deliberate policy. I have here the Liberals' official policyI managed to get it from their website. It says:
	As an early first step, the government should increase the number of bands at both ends of the Council Tax scale.
	Now it is official: rebanding comes courtesy of the Liberal Democrats. We know that their local income tax would hit working families particularly hard and cost them 630. Thanks to the honesty of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), we know that it would start to bite families who earn in the mid-30,000 bracket.
	Many Members have referred to the plight of older peoplea generation that this Government have done so much to airbrush out of modern Britain, and an inconvenient reminder of Labour's neglect. In eight short weeks, pensioners will have a choice, and it could not be clearer: under Labour, massive council tax increases, with a crippling revaluation; under the Liberal Democrats, a massive assault on the incomes of their children and grandchildren through an unfair local income tax; or under the Conservatives, up to 500 in their hands to address the abuses of the council taxtheir own money back in their hands to do with what they wish. I am confident that given that choice, they will choose the Conservatives.

Phil Hope: Let us cut straight to the main question, shall we? The key political question of the afternoon is the credibility of the Tories and their so-called council tax discount for pensioners. That is what this debate has been all about. The policy has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) as giving more discounts to those who need them least. That is a good summary of the Tories' proposals.
	Does the Tories' electoral bribe stand up or is it, as this debate has shown, unravelling? We witnessed the unedifying spectacle of Conservative MPs defending Tory councils that are going to increase their taxes by 13 per cent., 17 per cent., 23 per cent. and 100 per cent. That news will go back to the electorate in those constituencies, so that they know what those Tory councils and Tories really stand for.
	What is at stake is the credibility of the Tories overall strategy for public spending. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said, they admit that by 201112 they will impose spending cuts of 35 billion per year, as compared with projections based on Labour's spending plans. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Chancellor, said in November that those spending plans
	provide the ability over a six year period for us to be spending about 35bn less per year, in the sixth year, than Gordon Brown's plan provide for.
	Leaving aside council tax for a moment, we see that the choice is clear: investment with Labour or cuts under the Tories. It was ever thus.
	Then the Tories con trick comes into play. They are going to give some of the money back to particular groups, such as some pensioners in England, through a so-called discount on their council tax. That is a con trick, typical of the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't politics of Tory tax pledges. In reality, the Tories are once again being economical with the truth and offering fool's gold to the electorate.
	We know that that money will not be found from efficiency savings. The latest edition of the Municipal Journal says that to suggest that the 1 billion cost of the rebate will be met by efficiency savings is pie in the sky. I think that the description given by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was pie-eyed, as well as pie in the sky. We know that those cuts can come only from cuts in front-line services. There is no money for those discountsit must come from such cuts.
	The Tories say, for example, that they would cut 1 billion by abolishing all local government inspections. I look forward to hearing a few Tory MPs explaining on the doorstep why they are taking away the service that keeps child protection in place or how they are going to cut 1 billion from local housing. I cannot see too many of them going round the housing estates explaining those things when councils receive a massive cut in the grant.

Mark Prisk: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Hope: I am not going to give way, as I have very little time.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) have done an extraordinarily good job of analysing the Conservatives' spending plans and are clear that councils that receive a massive cut in grant will inevitably increase council tax. The discount will therefore not be a discount at all. Pensioners in areas such as Reading, West and Southampton, Test and across the country will experience a 40 per cent. increase in council tax.
	The Tories proposals are fool's gold. There is no money to give away to pensioners in council discounts. The Tories 35 billion of cuts means full spread council tax and an increase for council tax for all, not just pensioners.
	It is important that we remember the Tory record on funding for local government. We are not dealing with a here-and-now question. The pensioners whom the Tories are trying, with their fool's gold, to bribe into voting for them remember the Tories all too well. Those pensioners remember the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, introducing and scrapping the poll tax, and increasing VAT from 15 per cent. to 17.5 per cent., as we have been reminded. Those pensioners remember that in the last four years of their term the previous Tory Government cut funding for local government by 7 per cent. That stands in stark contrast to the 33 per cent. real-terms increase that the Labour Government have given to local councils.
	Even if memories among those pensioners were not very strong, however, they would know about the track record of Tory councils and about the average council tax, which is 200 more under Conservative authorities, as compared with Labour authorities. Labour authorities have lower council tax and better services, as measured by the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment.
	Finally, the Liberal Democrats continue to peddle their slogan, Axe The Tax, in a desperate attempt to win votes, despite the fact that not a single organisation with real expertise in local government funding supports the idea of replacing council tax with local income tax. What it means is a massive increase in the income tax of every family across the country. That is the Liberal proposalwritten on the back of a fag packet, it does not add up and will not be accepted by local people.
	The Tories have been caught out. Their track record on funding and support for local government is shameful. Their proposal on spending means savage cuts, and their promises on council tax discounts are worthless. The choice is clear: continued public investment and low council tax under Labour or cuts in services and massive increases in council tax under the Tories.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 322.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's support for local government with its 33 per cent. grant increase in real terms since 1997, compared to a real terms cut of 7 per cent. in the last four years of the previous administration; notes that the increase in council tax this year is set to be the lowest in over a decade at around 4 per cent. and the second lowest since it was introduced and is less than the increase in average earnings; notes CIPFA's view that it will add less than 1 a week to average council tax bills; further notes that the effect of the Opposition's policy to cut grant to councils and abolish capping would allow council tax to rise unchecked; and looks forward to the report of the Lyons inquiry into local government funding which is due by the end of this year.

Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of today's severe weather conditions in East Sussex and Kent, which have made driving particularly treacherous. According to the BBC, the Army has been deployed to help the emergency services. Have you had any indication from the Ministry of Defence that a Minister will come to the House to make a statement on these unusual circumstances and what assistance the Army is giving to the emergency services?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only in the narrowest sense is that a point of order for the Chair, but we would all be concerned and express sympathy for the people who are affected by these drastic weather conditions and those who seek to help them in the circumstances. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. As necessary, the matter may be dealt with or he and his colleagues might wish to pursue it at some later date on behalf of their constituents and local authorities, but the Chair cannot say more on the subject.

Hospital-acquired Infections

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
	That this House, whilst applauding the endeavours of dedicated NHS staff to do the best for their patients, is deeply concerned at the Government's continued failure to tackle effectively the continuing rise in the incidence of hospital-acquired infection; notes with alarm the recent report by the Office of National Statistics that 955 people died with methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as a contributing factor in 2003 alone, an increase of 155 on the year before and more than double the level in 1997; further notes that this seriously understates the gravity of the problem, given the failure to designate hospital-acquired infections on death certificates; is particularly worried by the sharp rise in the number of MRSA infections in children and babies as confirmed in a Patients Association study; further notes the continuing detrimental effect of the Government's obsession with targets which hinders the closure of beds or wards on clinical grounds when recommended by infection control teams; believes that matrons should have responsibility in hospitals for the hygiene, cleanliness and care of patients and the power to enforce measures including bed or ward closures; regrets the continuing failure of the Government to take measures recommended by the Public Accounts Committee and the failure to support a 'search and destroy' strategy as recommended by the Chief Medical Officer in his report 'Winning Ways'; and calls on the Government urgently to take concerted action to reduce drastically the level of hospital-acquired infections and restore the public's confidence in the safety of hospitals.
	The terms of the motion will not be unfamiliar to many hon. Members here today, who will recognise the problem of hospital-acquired infections from constituency cases. The Opposition have raised this problem in their debating time on numerous occasions, and we shall make it a central plank of our campaigning up to the general election. It is right that we do so, and I make no apology for returning to the issue again, for the simple truth is that the problem is getting worse, not better.
	Despite all the Government's initiatives, semi-initiatives, gimmicks, awareness campaigns and bluster, they have completely failed to get a grip on the situation, and the relentless advance and spread of hospital-acquired infections on their watch, leading to many thousands of avoidable deaths, is one of the great scandals of the past eight years.
	We have had from this Government, and particularly from the Secretary of State for Health, prevarication, obfuscation, deflection and pure mystification, culminating last week in the Office for National Statistics reporting that 955 people died from specified methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, in 2003 alonean increase of 155, or 20 per cent., over the previous year, and well over double the rate that Labour started with in 1997. That, however, is just the tip of the iceberg, as it deals only with those deaths that are attributed directly to MRSA on the death certificate, let alone all the other hospital-acquired infections and the tens of thousands of patients who have contracted infections in hospital and survived.

Andrew MacKinlay: When the hon. Gentleman was doing his research, did he notice a parliamentary question that I tabledfunnily enough, to the Minister who is to reply to him today, when she was a Treasury Minister dealing with statisticsrelating to the fact that death certificate reporting was misleading? A person would die of septicaemia or pneumonia and that would go on the death certificate, but it would not show MRSA. If I catch the Speaker's eye, I want to show that the reporting figures that the hon. Gentleman is referring to are false, because this Minister remedied the problem. I also want to refer to the failure of successive Ministers, Labour and Tory, to address that and related problems.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. In my research I spotted not only his question but the fact that he was one of only two Labour Members, including members of the Government, who ever raised the subject of MRSA in debate during the five years between 1992 and 1997 under the previous Government. It was such a scandal, apparentlyall the fault of the Conservatives, who started all thisthat not a single Minister initiated a debate on the subject in five years. Only one future Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), tabled a written question on MRSA during the five years of the last Conservative Government. It was such a scandal that there was not a single debate and not a single oral question about it; just one written question.
	The hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the problems of getting at the real facts and figures, caused by what is specified on death certificates. We know that doctors are increasingly reluctant to register deaths as MRSA-related because they fear that it might lead to legal action by patients' families.

David Hinchliffe: I believe that we should be even-handed. If the hon. Gentleman is going to campaign on the issue of MRSA, good luck to him, but is it not reasonable to ask why the motion makes no mention of the last Government's decision in 1983 to introduce competitive tendering, which drove down cleanliness standards in hospitals across the country as well as the wages of decent, hard-working cleaners? Does he accept that that has a key bearing on the problems we are discussing?

Tim Loughton: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was typical of the deflection tactics usually employed by Ministersbut they do not usually have to go back more than 20 years to pin the problem on the Conservative party. There is hardly any record of infections of this kind in those days. I shall return to that subject later.
	A conservative but realistic estimate by the National Audit Office puts the number of deaths from MRSA at more than 5,000 per annum. More than 40,000 people may have died of MRSA under the present Government; certainly more die of it each year than die in traffic accidents. Hospital-acquired infections are affecting more than 100,000 people each year in hospitals in England and Wales, the number being divided proportionally.
	It is a particularly British crisis. The number of incidences of MRSA infection in the United Kingdom, at 44 per cent. of staphylococcus aureus blood isolates resistant to methicillin, compares with just 1 per cent. in Denmark and The Netherlands and 19 per cent. in Germany.Much as the Secretary of State always likes to shift the blame away from the Government, we do not think that the accusing finger should be pointed at hard-working, dedicated NHS staff.

Phyllis Starkey: The hon. Gentleman's figures related to hospital-acquired infections. Has he figures for the incidence of MRSA in the British population compared with that in the populations of the countries that he cited? Is that not the relevant factor, and is that not why the incidence is so much higher in the British hospital population?

Tim Loughton: That is another bit of deflection. Now we are blaming people before they go into hospital. All those figures are covered in all the reports, and whatever measure the hon. Lady chooses, and however subjective we may be, I am afraid we do not come out of it well.

David Davis: Given what was said by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), let me remind my hon. Friend that the report that first mentioned 5,000 deaths a year from MRSA in this country was the National Audit Office report, which specifically excluded a series of categories. Under this Government, those who die at home are not counted, along with youngsters and those on immunosuppressant drugs. The hon. Lady should take no comfort from the 5,000 figure, as the true figure is probably much higher.

Tim Loughton: That is why I said that my estimatenot my estimate, in fact, but a widely accepted estimatewas conservative. It also relies in part on the way in which hospitals account for hospital-acquired infections. Many hospitals will not necessarily treat infections as hospital-acquired if they manifest themselves a certain amount of time after the patient has left the hospital. Hospitals such as my ownthe Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust, in Sussexdo play by the rules and account for all infections in hospital and, within a certain time, after leaving hospital. Indeed, they do rather well, but other hospitals, because of the management pressures imposed by the Government's targets, do not.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman mentions the dedicated service of hospital staff. Will he therefore consider the Royal College of Nursing's observation that alcohol wipes are the best way to deal with the problem, and that ward closures would exacerbate it by spreading disease further?

Tim Loughton: I should point out to the hon. Lady that the RCN welcomed our manifesto proposals on giving power to matrons and on infection control, so she needs to look a little beyond the headlines.

Several hon. Members: rose

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will make some progress; otherwise, we will be here until the Division.

Michael Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I can assure him that when I took part in Monday's NHS cleanliness awareness day, the matrons at the Worcester royal hospital told me that they do indeed have the power to close down wards when they fear infection.
	The hon. Gentleman is concerned about how the infection figures are compiled. Does he agree that although the compilation of such statistics is an issue, the more fundamental problem is how people like us use them? We have a duty to use them carefully and properly in considering these matters, so will he denounce the comments of his colleague the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who said:
	I don't believe the NHS statistics. Occasionally I bend them when they are helpful?

Tim Loughton: The problem is that nobody knows what to believe and what not to believe. The hon. Gentleman is lucky if he found a matron who says that matrons have the power to close wards, because according to the experience of most of us, they do not, and they are too often overruled by management.
	The plethora of half-baked knee-jerk reactions that the Department of Health often foists on NHS staff has served to increase the pressure on them yet further. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out in an earlier debate,
	Doctors and nurses across the country tell me that they know how to deliver infection-free environments and that they have experience of doing that. They know that they can do it if they are given the support and the freedom to deliver the requirements of patient safety without being contradicted by Government targets and bureaucracy. That is what is urgently required now.[Official Report, 8 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 792.]
	But they have been bombarded with no fewer than 23 initiatives in the past four years. In February 2000, departmental guidance was issued. In May 2000, the Department adopted and published Standards of environmental cleanliness. In July 2000 there was the Government's NHS plan, which included a campaign to clean up hospitals. In December 2003, Winning Ways Together was published. There has been no lack of paperwork on these subjects, so why, after all those publications and initiatives, is the situation continuing to deteriorate?
	The situation culminated in last week's ONS statistics and the designating of this Monday as think clean day. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. Every day should automatically be a think clean day. It is symptomatic of this Government's tick-box mentality that they think that, simply by having a think clean day, they can in some way sort out the problem.

Iris Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Peter Maguire, a consultant anaesthetist at Craigavon Area hospital in Northern Ireland, has called within the past couple of weeks for automatic screening of NHS staff? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should be done as a matter of urgency to instil confidence in the patients who are being treated by these very staff?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady makes an important point about screening, and I hope to ask a specific question of the Minister about screening in a moment.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend mentions pieces of paper. Does it surprise him to hear that when I recently visited a friend in hospitalin a mixed ward, incidentallythere was a piece of paper on the wall at the entrance to the ward stating, All visitors and staff to wash their hands with the gel on the trolley on entering and leaving the ward? There was no gel, and there was no trolley, so how on earth can a piece of paper be said to contribute to hygiene on the ward?

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is lucky to have seen a piece of paper giving advice. So often, during my many visits to hospitals, I have had to remind staff that I wanted to wash my hands or use the gel before visiting patients, and staff sometimes tell me that the stuff is not available.
	The news has been even more worrying recently. The Minister's reply to my parliamentary question revealed that, between 1997 and 2003, the number of reports of MRSA in children up to the age of 14 trebled. More worryingly still, a study by the Patients Association released this week revealed that hundreds of babies, many just a few days old, have been infected with MRSA in hospitals around Britain. As Professor Hugh Pennington of Aberdeen university, a microbiologist and expert in hospital-acquired infections, is reported as saying:
	If babies are getting MRSA, that is of concern, because it shows there is something seriously wrong with the infection control procedures.
	Hospitals in the survey included the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust, which admitted to having 38 babies aged under four weeks with MRSA. Eastbourne district general hospital in Sussex admitted that it had to close its baby unit for a whole week last year because five babies were carrying MRSA. Those figures alone suggest that the parliamentary answer by the Minister for Public Health, to which I referred, seriously understated the extent of the problem. In the other place, Lord Hanningfield asked a parliamentary question about the incidence of MRSA among children under five. The answer, provided by Lord Warner, estimated 71 cases in 2003, but that must be seriously awry simply on the basis of the figures that I have just provided.
	Last Friday evening, I visited the neo-natal unitthe Trevor Mann baby unitof the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton. It is a dedicated unit with a very professional staff doing a fantastic job under considerable pressure. The work is very demanding of staff, who have to look after babies born as early as 24 weeks after conception. If MRSA strikes there as viciously as it has in other hospitals, we really will face a serious problem that will affect some of the most vulnerable people in our hospitals.
	We understand that, in order to deal with the problem, the Government have commissioned a studyyet another studythat will cost 140,000. How long will it take to report, and what are the Government doing now about improving screening for new babies? What are they doing about people and equipment coming into contact with new babies in these very high-tech and sensitive wards? We read that thousands of babies are also being struck down by the respiratory syncytial virus, RSV, which can be picked up on dirty wards in the same way as MRSA.
	We can also see this week that patients are abandoning NHS hospitals and seeking treatment abroad, because they fear catching MRSA. Hans Finck, managing director of a German medical net company that organises treatment for foreign patients, said that thousands of Britons are travelling to Germany for operations. Before, he said,
	the main thing people used to mention was waiting lists in Britain, but now many mention MRSA.

Judy Mallaber: The hon. Gentleman talks about being scared, but will he apologise to NHS patients and staff at Heanor Memorial hospital in my constituency for the Tory billboard poster on cleaner hospitals, which was placed nearby for a day? The recent Peat report showed that the hospital had good cleanliness throughout, a good matron, and good infection control procedures. The Tories were either ignorant of the controversy over press misreporting or they deliberately went ahead with scaremongering, which really upset local staff at the hospital. Will he apologise?

Tim Loughton: On the Peat report, I put it to the hon. Lady that of the 20 worst general acute NHS trusts for MRSA in Englandthey administer 34 hospitals18 were rated, under the Peat guidelines, as acceptable for cleanliness; 13 were rated good for cleanliness; and three were rated excellent for cleanliness. Those included some of the hospitals with the worst MRSA rates, so she should reflect further on the definitions of her own Government and try to understand how those hospitals are being assessed. The Government are misleading the patients and the staff. If she thinks that it is a service to patients to conceal information, she is sorely mistaken. We are in favour of revealing any information for the benefit of patients, so that they can make informed choices and decisions. It is outrageous that patients who pay their taxes should not be entitled to receive that information. We will make that change after 5 May.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Will he consider the complaint of a constituent of mine, Mr. Bovill, which I have submitted to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)? Mr. Bovill's experience in the Royal Berkshire, a highly rated three-star hospital, was very different from what he expected of a hospital that had passed the Government's tests. Could that demonstrate that, as my hon. Friend suggests, the Government do not always measure what matters to the patients? Mr. Bovill reports a very dirty hospital, and the explanation was that it was between cleanings and monitorings. Will my hon. Friend ensure that we allow hospitals the wherewithal to be clean at all times?

Tim Loughton: I applaud the tenacity of Mr. Bovill, who is doing the sort of job that might previously have been done by community health councils. They used to take up the fears and concerns of local patients about cleanliness in hospitals, but they can no longer do so. The poodles that replaced CHCs do not have the powers to do that job, and so in many cases it is up to individuals such as Mr. Bovill. The same problem has arisen with a hospital in a trust near my home in Sussex.
	The truth is that the Government are losing the fight against the superbug. They are losing because they are substituting the quantity of their initiatives for the quality and effectiveness of what they should be doing, as recommended in previous independent studies by their medical advisers and by us. The Government have got the system wrong, and until they change it matters will not start to improve fundamentally.

David Heath: I accept from my own subjective experience that the culture of cleanliness and disease control is very different now, even in the most dedicated hospitals, from that which existed 20 or 25 years ago when I worked in theatre. I knew what was expected of me and of other staff in the hospital.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned experience abroad. What assessment has he made of the contribution that might be made by bacteriophage therapies to reduce MRSA infection?

Tim Loughton: I have not made a detailed assessment of that, but we should learn from the experiences of successful hospitals on the continent. Indeed, we should have learned from them some years ago, but that has not happened.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have the permission of my constituent, Mrs. White, to use her case. She came to my surgery in a very distressed state because her husband had died of a suspected hospital-acquired disease in the Royal United hospital in Bath. She told me that it did not look as if the hospital had been cleaned for weeks, and there were used syringes lying around. The local trust is in severe financial difficulties. Is it not time that the Government got to grips with those problems?

Tim Loughton: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituent, Mrs. White, but I am afraid that hers is not an isolated case. We must do more to restore the confidence of patients in our hospitals. We will do the patients, the staff and the whole system a disservice if we do not restore that confidence.
	I have some specific questions for the Minister. Why will the Government not conduct a search and destroy approach to tackling MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections, as recommended by their chief medical officer in Winning Ways in December 2003? Such an approach has been dramatically successful in Holland and Denmark and could work in the UK. In the Netherlands, they screen patients and isolate those infected, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) mentioned earlier. Who exactly has the final say over infection control in hospitals? How can the Minister justify a situation, revealed by the National Audit Office report in July 2004, in which 12 per cent. of infection control teams reported that a recommendation to close a ward or hospital to admissions for the purposes of outbreak control was ignored? When will the Government give proper control of infection outbreaks to matrons or other appropriate health professionals, rather than to management ones to carry out the Government's obsession with targets? Where exactly does the buck stop in hospitals? Who is really in charge? Does the Minister not understandas again the NAO suggestedthat because of the pressure to meet Labour's targets, hospitals have poor infection control?
	The increased throughput of patients to meet performance targets has resulted in considerable pressure towards higher bed occupancy, which is not always consistent with good infection controls and bed-management practices.
	That is a quote from the NAO.

Richard Spring: The obsessive intrusion by central Governmentthe creation of targets that lead to clinical distortionslies at the heart of the problem. I visited my local hospital and had a meeting with the chairman and chief executive. While that meeting was going on, there were 110 patients with a diarrhoea and vomiting bug. I was not told. The culture of fear that now obtains in many parts of the NHS is such that transparency has ceased because of the way that the Government seek to control, with targets and interference, the real function of the NHS.

Tim Loughton: That is the absolutely fundamental point of our criticism of the way that the Government have handled this crisis.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I want to make progress, but I shall return to the hon. Gentleman in a moment because this will not be a long debate and many hon. Members will seek to contribute in interventions.
	If hygiene is to improve, it is vital that hospitals are given real freedomsto introduce initiatives, improve facilities and balance competing priorities, such as waiting lists and safe bed occupancy levels, without risking the wrath of Whitehall. As Dr. Alison Holmes, the director of infection, prevention and control at Hammersmith hospital has acknowledged,
	the juggling act of quick turnarounds and bed hogging required to perform more procedures on more patients with shorter stays in hospital is fuelling the spread of infectious disease.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman seems to be guilty of trying to make a general case from anecdotal evidence. Does he agree with the comment in a newspaper with which, I am sure, he will be very familiarthe Wiltshire Gazette and Heraldwhere the writer said that it is easy to cut and paste to give the impression that an institution is generally bad and filthy when it is not? The writer was the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who is sitting two places from him on the Front Bench.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman's comments are rather complacent. Most of the points that I have been making are from experts involved in the NAO report, which was based not just anecdotal evidence, but on a pretty comprehensive study.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I shall make some progress.
	Ministers have failed to take their own advice, which we endorsed. In their response to the 2000 NAO report that warned about bed occupancy rates, Ministers promised that, by 200304, bed occupancy rates could be reduced to 82 per cent. In fact, three quarters of trusts have been operating at higher rates than thataveraging 89 per cent. and 91 per cent. for orthopaedic and vascular surgery respectively. More than 90 per cent. of trusts with the worst rates of MRSA operate above the 82 per cent. target set by the Department and deemed safe by the Health Protection Agency. The Opposition have warned for the past five years and beyond about the consequences of not taking that seriously.
	Professor Barry Cookson of the Health Protection Agency, when speaking to health professionals, talked openly about the need to reduce the pressure on the NHS and cut bed occupancy rates to 85 per cent., but before he could give one-to-one interviews with the media, he was mysteriously spirited away for a quiet chat with officials, only to re-emerge having toned down his claimsmore dumbing down by the Government, who are not allowing the professionals to speak out. Is the Minister serious about tackling bed occupancy rates? Does she acknowledge that the issue is part of the problemor is it all talk again?
	The NAO report also found that the isolation facilities in some NHS trusts had been significantly reduced and that many infection control teams believed that facilities for isolating patients were unsatisfactory. In 2001, the Department of Health assured the Public Accounts Committee that the need for more isolation facilities was being addressed. So what has been achieved since then? What has actually changed four years on?

Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NAO report also flagged up the fact that antibiotics are becoming increasingly powerless at dealing with the superbug? Surely that fact makes the Government's complacency even more unforgivable.

Tim Loughton: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even more worrying than that was a report in today's press that in the next few years, even the most powerful drugs available to combat the most potent strains will no longer be effective. We would thus face a gap in our weapons armoury to deal with the most powerful strains, which rings the alarm bells. We cannot afford to be complacent.
	Let me ask the Minister several questions. What improvements to screening have taken place? How many hospitals currently screen vulnerable patients, such as elderly people and those in neo-natal units. Is there a link between the extent of screening and the significant differences in MRSA rates among hospitals? Do most hospitals now screen staff when there is an outbreak on a ward? What procedures are in place to make visitors more aware of precautions that they must take? Are there proposals to limit visiting times more extensively?

Jim Dowd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: Not at the moment.
	What action are the Government taking to promote the better training of staff? Does the Minister agree with the Royal College of Nursing that further action is needed to make infection control a mandatory part of training for all NHS workers? Is she worried about the situation described by Professor Richard Wise from the Birmingham City Trust, who said that the number of infection control nurses was worryingly low, at one nurse to every 347 beds, and that there should be one nurse to every 200 beds? What progress have the Government made in meeting their target of one infection control nurse to every 250 beds?
	Why will the Government still not publish infection rates for MRSA and other infections per clinical department as we have undertaken to do, given that hospital trusts have had a mandatory duty to report such infections since April 2001? Why should patients not have the right to know the truth? After all, the Secretary of State's opening pledge of his campaign for action in Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection was
	Being open with the public.
	So much for that.
	The Government's policy thus far has often been to deflect criticism on to anyone but them. The problem is apparently all down to the contracting out of cleaning staff that was started by the wicked Tories. Alas, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has left the Chamber. Ministers surreptitiously trot out the assertion that the blame should be put on contracted-out cleaners, or allow Unison to do the dirty work for them as a pay back for the 7 million of donations that it has given the Labour party since the last election. However, the chief medical officer is on record as saying that there is no link between contracted-out cleaning and MRSA rates. On the Today programme on 10 January, the Secretary of State said:
	There's no proven causal link between contracting out and MRSA.
	Let us stop that debate now.
	Indeed, 11 of the top 20 acute NHS trusts for cleanliness are cleaned by private contractors, while 11 of the bottom 20 are cleaned by in-house teams. Yet again, the picture is confused because the Government's patient environment action teamPEATscoring system gives a different impression of the situation, as I said earlier. In any case, surely it would be easier for a hospital to sack a duff cleaning firm that is failing to do its job properly than to sack in-house staff. We intend to give matrons and infection control teams a far greater say about such matters in the future and more powers to deal with the problem.
	We agree that more needs to be done on cleaning. We agree that cleaning needs to be a more fundamental and central part of health spending on hospitals. However, it is entirely disingenuous to try to pin responsibility for the problem on a political decision going back to the 1980s. It is an attempt to deflect the blame from where it should lie.
	The Government use the deflection tactic of saying that the problem is all down to the Conservatives' actions in the 1980s and 1990s, but if hospital-acquired infections were such a burning issue then, why did the then Labour Opposition not raise the matter a single time? There was not one Opposition day debate on hospital-acquired infections between 1992 and 1997. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) tabled one written parliamentary question on the matter during his time as shadow Secretary of State for Healthon 29 October 1993. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for asking many more questions and securing a debate on the matter on 19 March 1997. He was surpassed only by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), who secured two debates in May 1997 and December 1995. Thus two Back Benchers raised the subject in five years, so let us lay the blame where appropriate. For the past eight years, this has been a burning issue under a Government whose own policies have exacerbated the problem. Their attempts to deflect the blame on to the previous Government do not hold water.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman outline what steps the Conservative Government took between 1992 and 1997 to introduce surveillance measures for hospital-acquired infections? One reason why questions were not asked in the House is that the hon. Gentleman's Government were not providing the evidence.

Tim Loughton: It would be strange if a measure of an Opposition's effectiveness were how forward the Government were in making information available. If that were the case, we would not be raising this issue time and again. The Government have frequently sought to deflect attention away from the problem, have engaged in subterfuge and have not released the information that we have requested, so the hon. Gentleman makes a weak point. Is he saying that a Conservative Minister had to raise the issue before he would dare to ask questions? What utter nonsense. It is a national scandal that one in 11 hospital patients has a hospital-acquired infection at any time. The Labour Government have let our patients and our NHS down badly. They have confused quantity with quality by introducing a plethora of initiatives and gimmicks. They have deflected the blame so that it lies with anyone but themselves, but it has all been too late.
	We will replace that catalogue of prevarication with an urgent timetable for action. Conservatives will put clinicians back in charge of determining whether or not hospital wards are safe. They will not be subject to the arbitrary targets imposed by a Government obsessed with numbers and throughput rather than quality and the safety of patients. Matron will be put back in charge of our hospital wards. There will be proper nursing matronsnot the Government's management matronswho know whether or not a bed is clean and recognise the virtues of a good whiff of bleach in the air. There will be no doubt about who is in charge of wards under the next Conservative Government. Matrons will not soft-soap us on cleanliness. I recently spoke to a hospital infections director, who tried to convince me   that dusting under a bed was not a good idea, because it encouraged any infections to become airborne and therefore more dangerous to the patient. Unbelievableand she was on a six-figure salary.
	Conservatives will not accept the Government's limp target for halving MRSA bloodstream infections by 2008, as the situation is too grave. Indeed, it is grave enough for the Secretary of State to make an appearance in the Chamber. We will institute the sort of ruthless search-and-destroy strategy that brought about drastic improvements in Holland. We will not compromise patient safety with unrealistic targets on bed occupancy levels, as that is a false economy. Hospital-acquired infections cost the NHS 1 billion, result in prolonged stays by patients who have caught infections and have a human cost for the people affected by them. The Conservatives will speed up the diagnosis of MRSA through the faster application of new methods, and will expand screening where appropriate. We will publish infection rates for all hospitals, because we believe that patients have the right to know. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be tasked to prepare evidence-based infection control standards, and we will fund hospitals to recruit more infection-control nurses and to install new technology to fight the superbug.
	There is nothing in the motion that Members on all sides of the case cannot support if they genuinely believe in improving the safety of our patients and genuinely believe that hospital-acquired infections are a serious problem. There is nothing inevitable about the superbug crisis. It is time that the Government applied some of their own pledges from their latest rather vacuous pledge card to assess how they have dealt with this problem. Your family better offnot when it comes to the risk of MRSA. Your child achieving morenot with more children contracting MRSA in our hospitals.
	Your children with the best start
	at the risk of catching MRSA; I do not think so.
	Your family treated better and faster
	and Your community saferI do not think so. It is surely is a case of backward, not forward under this Government.
	Last month, the chief medical officer, talking about MRSA, admitted:
	We've been perhaps a little bit too gentle on health infection in the past and it's now really no more Mr. Nice Guy.
	It is time for Mr. Nasty on the Treasury Bench and his Government to move aside and make way for a party committed to taking this problem seriously, committed to the safety of our patients and our staff, and committed to the safety of our NHS. I commend the motion to the House.

Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'welcomes the Government's commitment to tackle hospital acquired infections with a robust programme for improving standards in infection control; congratulates the Government on its action plan for reducing infection rates, Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection, and the introduction of the new target to halve the rate of MRSA in the first instance, and the appointment of local directors of infection prevention and control to cut cross infection locally; supports the Chief Medical Officer's action plan Winning Ways; recognises that MRSA is a longstanding problem that became endemic in the National Health Service between 1993 and 1997 and believes that this Government is to be congratulated on introducing a system of mandatory surveillance for MRSA to establish its full extent; notes that the Government is working with experts from home and abroad to identify the actions and best practice which will make a difference, including a matron's charter, a national hand hygiene campaign, improved standards and better inspection of hospital cleanliness; and therefore congratulates the Government on its comprehensive programme of investment and reform that has equipped the NHS to deliver improvements in patient safety, and to reduce hospital acquired infections.'
	I would like to get to some facts about why infections occur, about the solutions and what we are doing about them, about targets, about support for the NHS and about the whole issue of cleanliness, but I must start by asking why the Opposition have chosen so systematically to attack the NHS and to politicise the issue so consistently.
	Last week, when the Office for National Statistics announced the new figures about MRSA on death certificates, it took the Leader of the Opposition only a couple of hours to hold a party political press conference attacking the NHS. In that press conference he had the opportunity to tell the country that while he was in the Cabinet, between 1993 and 1997, the percentage of Staphylococcus aureus isolates that were methicillin resistant, that is MRSA, increased from 5 per cent. to 30 per cent., and it has only now settled at just over 40 per cent. He also had the opportunity on that occasion of saying what he thought about the comment from Geraldine Cunningham of the Royal College of Nursingwhose comments have already been referred tocriticising the Leader of the Opposition's soundbite, saying:
	It sounds great, but how do you translate it? It is much more complex than just closing a ward. Actually, there are always patients in wards. If you moved them you would spread the infection.

Tim Loughton: I am mystified, because one of the main criticisms of the Secretary of State is always that hospital-acquired infection rates were apparently not collected under the last Government, so how is the Minister using these figures against us, when apparently we did not collect them?

Melanie Johnson: We are using figures produced by the Government's chief scientist. [Interruption.] We will come back to the retrospective bit in a minute. I am very happy to go over some of the past with the hon. Gentleman, because I think that he will find that it is other than as he said.
	The Leader of the Opposition also had the opportunity in the press conference to comment on the revealing statement by his colleague, the absent shadow Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), when last June he said:
	I don't believe the NHS statistics. Occasionally I bend them when they are helpful.
	Perhaps the fact that he is not here means that he dare not show his face and respond. [Interruption.] I am happy to see the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) defending his hon. Friend.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is busy visiting hospitals today, as it is right that he should. Unlike the Minister's team, the Opposition's health team are multi-talented and multi-tasked. It does not require the shadow Secretary of State to make this case. This case is overwhelming.

Melanie Johnson: It is dangerous for a Member of the male-dominatedexclusively, bar oneOpposition Benches to talk about multi-tasking when those of both genders on the Labour Benches are talented and have so many more women who are so good at multi-tasking. I shall respond to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) who is waving at me in a moment, but first I want to deal with another matter.
	The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is a member of the Opposition Front-Bench health team, and this is what he said about his local hospital in the Wiltshire Gazette and Herald:
	it is easy to cut and paste giving the impression that an institution is generally bad and filthy when it is not.
	That summarises the Tory approach to MRSA.
	The hon. Member for West Chelmsford said:
	I certainly accept that that problem
	the growing problem of MRSA in our hospitals
	cannot and will not be eradicated overnight.
	However, that is what his party is calling for. He continued:
	efforts naturally have to be made to ensure that more is done to minimise and reduce the incidence of the problem, and I believe that cleanliness in our hospitals is a key factor in achieving that.[Official Report, 8 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 810.]
	I shall return to cleanliness in a moment.
	The remarks by the hon. Member for Westbury about his local hospital are also true of the NHS. I would be delighted to take an intervention if he wants to defend himself.

Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn the Horizon programme, to which I think that she is referring, for cutting and pasting? I hope that we achieve a good overview of cleanliness in our NHS, which is what this debate is about, and I am sorry that she has chosen to quote selectively, which does her no credit.

Melanie Johnson: What the hon. Gentleman has said about his local hospital is also true of the NHS. It is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to give the impression that the NHS is generally filthy, when it is not.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham could have commented on the issues or outlined his policy, but he attacked the NHS with a soundbite. Instead of soundbites, let us examine the real improvements. Reducing infections is a top priority for the NHS, because hospital-acquired infections, including MRSA, cause illness, pain, anxiety, longer stays in hospital and sometimes, regrettably, death. Since her appointment last October, our new chief nursing officer, Christine Beasley, has led a wide-ranging programme to improve both infection control and hospital cleanliness, which should reduce infection rates.
	Let us move beyond the Opposition's soundbites to how such infections, which come from a wide variety of micro-organisms, are caused. By the way, the figure of 5,000 deaths mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham relates not to MRSA, but to hospital-acquired infections, which cover a wide range of infections, including bacteria from our own bodies. Unfortunately, not all hospital-acquired infections are preventable.
	Many factors contribute to the problem, including the treatment of more susceptible patients, such as those with severe or chronic diseases, than ever before. At the same time, advances in treatment that improve patients' survival chances, such as chemotherapy, can leave them more vulnerable to infections. Other factors, such as increased antibiotic resistance, are also important. No single, simple solution exists to that complex and multi-faceted problem, but the risk of contracting those infections can in part be reduced by simple and effective infection control measures.
	Health care-acquired infections are a problem in not only the UK, but internationally. In the United States, Australasia and most European countries, including the UK, the number of patients who experience a hospital-acquired infection ranges between 4 and 10 per cent., which is a remarkably consistent set of statistics. Hospital-acquired infections are not a new phenomenon. Although medical practices change and different micro-organisms are involved, estimates that about 9 per cent. of in-patients in England acquire an infection have not changed since at least 1980.
	The attack with which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham concluded his gross distortion of the facts in opening the debate actually showed that nothing has changed since 1980. Health care-acquired infections have remained consistently at the same sort of rate across the piece.

Tim Loughton: Is the Minister seriously saying that the number of people who are dying from hospital-acquired infections in 2005 is the same as the number who died in 1980?

Melanie Johnson: I am saying that the rate of infection is the same, and has consistently remained about the same, over the past 25 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) rightly said, we were   the first Government to introduce mandatory surveillance for MRSA bloodstream infections. That was initiated in 2001 and has since been extended to other infections. More data should be available later this year. The Conservatives were so unconcerned about this when they were in power that they did not even begin to count the number of infections. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham attempted to pin it on the then Labour Opposition, but we must have done something right, as we have been in government since 1997. He ignored the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock in raising this issue in the past. When Conservative Members were in government they did not raise the matter at allthey did not worry about it and did nothing to counter it.

Julian Lewis: Does the Minister believe that the Opposition are raising the issue because of statistics published by the Government or because of the experience of constituents, who report to us time and again that they and their loved ones have been infected, sometimes fatally? She seems to be in denial about the fact that there is a problem. Let her go on denying itit may enable her to score debating points in this Chamber, but it will not wash with the public out there.

Melanie Johnson: The reason why the Opposition keep raising this matter has nothing to do with the issuing of statistics, nor with its having been raised with them by members of the publicmany issues are raised with usand everything to do with denigrating the NHS and providing a setting in which they can undermine public confidence in it in order to remove 2 billion[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Melanie Johnson: The truth of the matter is that the Opposition do it to try to get into government so that they can remove 2 billion to prop up those choosing private health care at the expense of the vast majority of patients using the NHS.

Crispin Blunt: Perhaps I could share my experience of visiting my local hospital last Friday night and early Saturday morning. It is a 466-bed hospital, but only 12 beds were vacant in the entire place, and the bed managers told me that that was a particularly good situation. Seven of those beds happened to be in gynaecology. In order for the A and E department to meet the targets imposed on it by the Government, patients are shipped around from one bed to another, taking infection with them, until they eventually get to the right place. That is one of the causes of the problem, and it is the direct responsibility of the Government and their targets.

Melanie Johnson: The reason why we are tackling these issues is that we were left with an NHS starved of investment[Interruption.] That is a well-known fact, frankly. We inherited an NHS where many people were waiting more than 18 months; now, we have got waiting times down so that nobody waits more than nine months, and most people wait four or five months

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Melanie Johnson: No, I will not.
	Soon, people will wait only 18 weeks from start to finish.

Crispin Blunt: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has indicated that, at this point, she is not willing to give way.

Melanie Johnson: To make progress, I should like to move on to consider the information that we have. It shows a slight but not dramatic increase in MRSA in the past three years. However, we are not alone in experiencing such an increasethe same problem has occurred in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Ireland since 1999. We estimate that MRSA affects approximately 0.3 per cent. of patients or three in every 1,000. Of course, that is three too many in every 1,000 and we need to reduce that figure. However, the Opposition should be careful, in their delight in attacking the NHS, not to exaggerate a serious problem to the extent of unduly alarming patients and making them afraid to go into hospital to seek the treatment that they need.

Phyllis Starkey: Is not my hon. Friend the Minister worried about Conservative Members' level of scientific understanding? They cannot understand the difference between hospital-acquired infections as a group and MRSA. That led to their suggesting that the figure that you[Hon. Members: You?] Pardon me, Madam Deputy Speaker. They suggested that the figure that my hon. Friend gave for the prevalence of MRSA in hospital patients was different from that that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) cited for the total number of hospital-acquired infections. Obviously, the figures are different because they apply to different things. How can one have confidence in Conservative Members' arguments when they demonstrate that they have not the faintest understanding of what they are talking about?

Melanie Johnson: As usual, my hon. Friend makes her point eloquently. We should be worriedI am sure that the country is concernedabout the prospect of such an Opposition ever becoming a Government.
	We know that the infections can be prevented, we are acting on that important safety issue and we are committed to being completely open with the public about it.

Tim Loughton: Ha!

Melanie Johnson: We have published the extent of MRSA infections in every NHS trust since 2001 on the Department of Health website. The Opposition never published such figures when they were in power. I do not know what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham finds laughable.

Ivan Henderson: My hon. Friend mentions openness. Conservative Members have cited what people in the NHS said, but does she remember that, in the old days, when the Tories were in control, they gagged people and prevented them from revealing problems? Whistleblowers were disciplined for speaking out. Is not it a good thing that they can say what they think under this Government?

Melanie Johnson: Indeed. My hon. Friend brings me to an important part of what I wish to say in response to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He made several comments about the National Audit Office survey and the results of the infection control team survey.
	The NAO survey was conducted in July 2003. It asked teams to report on a period that stretched back to 2000. Even over three years, the figures showed that almost nine out of 10 teams reported that they encountered none of the problems of having their recommendations rejected or discouraged by chief executives. I shall consider the rest of the findings shortly because I have some interesting facts, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not like to hear.
	In addition, a similar proportion of trusts reported that they had closed parts of hospitals to deal with outbreaks. None of the detailed returns from the 12 per cent. that reported that they had raised the issue but not closed wards mentioned MRSA. Not a single one mentioned it. Most outbreaks were of diarrhoea and vomiting and other similar, admittedly serious, infectious conditions. They were not MRSA. The Opposition's entire case is predicated on one report and finding. It is absolutely wrong.

Kali Mountford: I confirm to hon. Members the facts of my hon. Friend's case. When an outbreak of vomiting and diarrhoea recently occurred in Huddersfield royal infirmary, it was simple for people to report to the chief executive, who acted swiftly and kept me informed. Wards were closed when appropriate, and patients were treated quickly when necessary and sent home to avoid further infecting vulnerable patients. In other words, the tools needed to do the job were in place. Is not it important to continue that approach and ignore Opposition giggling?

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend is so right. Of course, the Opposition complain if any operation is cancelled for whatever reason. They are trying, as usual, to have their cake and eat it.
	Our plans to reduce infection rates were set out in Winning Ways, which was published in December 2003, before any of the work that we have done, and that is now being used, albeit it did not mention MRSA in a single case. Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection was published last July. We are actively implementing those programmes and building on the work already under way.

Adrian Bailey: The proposals to combat hospital-acquired infections are very necessary, but when I consulted a local doctor in an acute trust, he told me that the most effective way to combat MRSA in future would be with more nurses, more doctors, and better and newer hospitals with single-bed rooms. Investment is crucial to reducing infections. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that proposals to take 2 billion out of the NHS could have devastating consequences for MRSA?

Melanie Johnson: Absolutely. That would be devastating for many of our achievements. We have put 570 million extra into cancer treatment, for example, and anyone who considers the 2 billion that would come out can see the scale of the damage that would be done. [Interruption.]

Simon Burns: The boss is leaving.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Melanie Johnson: Although I am happy to go on taking interventions, I would like to make some progress first.
	As part of updating and improving the NHS, we are creating the extra capacity needed to ensure better patient care. Some 135 billion for the NHS was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last month. Compared with 1997, there are 77,500 more nurses and more than 19,000 more doctors working in the NHS. The hard work of NHS staff will help us to reduce health care-associated infections. A major new initiative has been the introduction of a target to halve MRSA bloodstream infections.

Tim Loughton: A target!

Melanie Johnson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about targets. This problem is challenging, but we know that having a target ensures that an issue is given priority in the NHS. We believe that the new target will raise the profile of infection control and ensure that effective action is taken. Opposition Members have disagreed with national targets, repeatedly arguing against them in the Chamber and elsewhere. Their manifesto contains a commitment to oppose targets. They believe that the magic of the market will in some way make everything better. That is clearly nonsense. We have achieved a lot through having targets. In the case of infections, no one on the Opposition Benches would even know what was happening if we were not publishing the figures. Nor would they know what progress we were making if we were not measuring ourselves against a target.

Jim Dowd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Melanie Johnson: I want to make a little progress first, and I will then be happy to give way some more.

Simon Burns: You are on your own now.

Melanie Johnson: That has nothing to do with whether I give way.
	Hand hygiene is an important part of inspection control. Last September we launched what we believe to be the first ever national hand hygiene campaign. The clean your hands campaign was based on a thorough, successful pilot study undertaken by the National Patient Safety Agency. That evidence-based campaign is tackling what has been an intractable problem for health care systems worldwide, and its impact on infection rates will be evaluated.
	We are also taking a proactive approach to research in that area. We hosted a science summit in December and issued a call for proposals on health care-associated infections in February.

Rob Marris: I am grateful for what the Government are doing on this serious issue. To be prosaic, I get complaints from constituents, whose concerns I share, that some hospital staff do not take off their uniforms when they leave the hospital; they can be seen in supermarkets and so on in their uniforms. Back in the 1950s, the rule that staff should not go off site or travel to work in their uniforms was strictly enforced. Is that part of the Government's strategy to address the issue?

Melanie Johnson: It is up to local trusts to decide on their policy. Some operate the policy of providing and cleaning uniforms on site, while others allow staff to take uniforms home and clean them there.
	I should like to make some more rapid progress, but I want to deal with a couple of important matters raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He raised the question of MRSA and neonatal units. The figures relating to the parliamentary question that he mentioned are about reported bacteraemias only. Some of the figures in the Patients Association survey, which I think he was quoting, are for colonised patientscarriersand not those who are infectious. That is an important set of distinctions, and we stand by our numbers: in 2003, there were only 71 reported MRSA blood isolates in England in children aged under five years. We expect that the provisional figure for 2004 will be lower.

John Hayes: rose

Jim Dowd: rose

Melanie Johnson: I would like to make some progress. I am conscious of time, and this is a shortened debate.
	We have been actively supporting NHS staff in achieving the changes that we want. Our programme is one in which local action is crucial. The requirement in Winning Ways for each trust to designate a director of infection prevention and control is helping to change the culture so that infection control is everyone's business. The directors report directly to the chief executive and the board. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked who was responsible for this matter; of course, at the end of the day it will be the chief executive and the board. That is only right and proper; I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can possibly disagree. In coming months, the directors will be producing publicly available annual reports on their local situation.

John Hayes: Now that the Minister is moving beyond the knockabout politics that seemed to preoccupy her in most of the opening of her speech, will she specifically address the issues identified in Winning Ways with regard to the experiences of other countries? The document makes it clear that several policies have been adopted by other countries. I am sure that she is aware of them. Which of those recommendations has she taken on board in her policy for reducing the incidence of MRSA?

Melanie Johnson: We have looked at a number of things. I am sure that the detail involved would require me to write to the hon. Gentleman, and I am very happy to do that. I can say that the suggestion that we should operate a destroy strategy, which has been canvassed today, would not be one of those options. We have looked at the policy and the rates of infection in the Netherlands. Indeed, a Dutch expert came recently to a national conference to talk with our experts. That expert said that such an approach would be inappropriate here. The search and destroy strategy is appropriate for the Netherlands because the country has a much lower rate of MRSA in the population as a whole. It has nothing to do with anything else; the approach is practically feasible in the Netherlands in a way that it is not here.

Jim Dowd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Melanie Johnson: I must make some progress, or I will have the Whips on my back. I hope that hon. Members will be patient.
	Cleanliness is improving, as is demonstrated by the PEATpatient environment action teamvisits. Notification of such visits will in future be made no earlier than the afternoon before the visit, and PEATs will not nominate areas for inspection until the inspection day. The results from PEAT inspections are very encouraging, but it is important that the public know that the inspectors are genuinely looking at hospitals as they are, not doing so after a notice period in which the place can be cleaned up.
	I mentioned the launch of the matron's charter last October by Chris Beasley, our chief nursing officer. It is a clear document that sets out clear high standards and a new management system that will be evaluated in several sites to provide a means whereby matrons can control directly the use of cleaning resources at their disposal.

Jim Dowd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Melanie Johnson: Yes, I will.

Jim Dowd: Hallelujah! I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She will be aware that Lewisham hospital has been at the forefront of the initiatives on infection control, and that it has reduced its infection rates by almost 30 per cent since 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and I visited the hospital a couple of months ago, not only to see what steps it was taking but to see a ward that had been closed specifically to deal with infection. In a 450-bed unit, the decision to close that ward would have been a very difficult one to take. In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said earlier on the nature of MRSA, I must point out that the hospital is also undertaking screening of people presenting at the accident and emergency department. Of the 5 per cent. or so who come from nursing homesall of which are privately owned in Lewishammore than 40 per cent. have MRSA on admission.

Melanie Johnson: This is obviously an issue for the NHS. It is also a problem because elderly people are especially vulnerable to infection, as are the very young; the figures on the rates of infection reflect that. My hon. Friend makes a useful point.
	It has been suggested that our success in treating patients more quickly has impacted on our ability to control infection rates. The NHS runs at high bed-occupancy rates because it is treating more patients and cutting waiting lists. Increasing activity means that we have to work even harder to reduce the risk of infection, and that is just what the NHS is doing. There are examples of hospitals with high bed occupancy and low infection rates. Sheffield, for example, has an MRSA rate of 0.16 per 1,000 bed days, and an 88.7 per cent. bed occupancy rate. However, neither the Government nor the NHS is complacent about the attack on infection.
	The Opposition need to understand that their silence on health policy is not good enough for the British people. Their policy on health is one soundbite: tackling MRSA is important, but it is not a health policy for a political party that wants to have custody of the NHS

Simon Burns: Awful!

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is awful, and he is quite right. It is awful. The Tories' policy is an absolute nightmare. What do they have to say about how they would improve results on cancer care or coronary heart disease, for example? What do they have to say about waiting lists and waiting times? What do they have to say, other than that they are going to take 2 billion from the NHS to subsidise the few who can already afford private health care? If they want to convince the British people that they can be trusted with the NHS, they will have to set out a health policy that will convince people they deserve that trust. The reason that will not happen is that their policy is to destroy the founding principle of the NHS by introducing charges for basic operations

Simon Burns: Will the Minister give way?

Melanie Johnson: I will not.
	The Tories' spin doctors have told them how unpopular that policy would be. Tory health policy is the policy that dare not speak its name

Simon Burns: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that she is not prepared to give way. I will not tolerate this kind of behaviour in the Chamber.

Melanie Johnson: Cash flowing out of the health service to subsidise operations for the few would result in under-investment, longer waiting times and, ultimately, the destruction of the NHS. That is the Tories' real agenda here. The crucial divide in health care is between the Labour party, which believes in an NHS that is free at the point of use, and the Conservative party, which would place a patient's ability to pay above their clinical need. I have set out the facts for the House, and I believe that they speak clearly for themselves. I trust that Members will oppose the Opposition motion when the time comes.

Paul Burstow: Hospital infections such as MRSA are not newthey were not conjured into existence in 1997. No matter how convenient that idea might be for the narrative of the Conservatives' general election campaign, it simply is not the case. The prevention, control and containment of superbugs has been a long-standing issue for the NHS and other health care organisations, both in this country and overseas. What is new is that, since the National Audit Office report of 2000, there has been a gradual and growing realisation of the scale of the challenge posed by superbugs, of the 1 billion cost of dealing with the consequences of infection that the report identified and of the annual toll of 5,000 preventable deaths.
	First and foremost, the National Audit Office's message to the Government and the national health service in 2000 was, Get a grip. Better management and clinical information were key to having an impact on the problem. To be fair, the Government instituted a system of mandatory reporting of MRSA bloodstream infection rates in 2001. Until that point, there was no clear measure of the scale of the problem. In 18 years in power, the Conservatives were content to rely on a voluntary reporting system that under-reported the problemdramatically in parts of the country, but significantly across the country. That allowed MRSA rates and those for other superbugs to get out of control.
	I must say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that it is not a sufficient argument to say that the Conservatives in government were not to blame because Labour in opposition did not ask the questions. That is an inexcusable rationale for saying that the Conservatives are not to blame. Indeed, Conservative Government policy on MRSA fell into three parts: say nothing about MRSA, learn nothing about MRSA, do nothing about MRSA. Nothing new there then.
	Mandatory reporting helps only if it is smart mandatory reportingif it helps organisations and clinicians to learn and change the way they workbut the system introduced back in 2001 fails that test. Collecting hospital MRSA rates might help headline writers to scare patients, but it fails to give front-line staff and management the information they need to fight infection.
	According to the most recent NAO survey of infection control teams, when asked about the practical impact of collection of hospital MRSA rates, 27 per cent. of teams said it had no obvious effect. That is hardly a ringing endorsement from the experts on the ground.
	In 2000, the NAO recommended that specialty level surveillance of hospital-acquired infections should be introduced. In the follow-up report last July, it said that
	there is still a lack of robust information on the majority of infections at both the local and national level. As a result it is still not possible to say whether there has been any tangible measurable progress.
	It went on to say that information available from trusts suggested that the improvement had been small. Why? The NAO argued:
	The lack of ownership of surveillance data by clinicians is likely to be one of the main reasons.
	More worrying still was the NAO finding that one in five infection control teams were not carrying out any surveillance activity other than mandatory MRSA bloodstream surveillance. Failure to set in place mandatory specialty-specific surveillance of infections has hamstrung the efforts of front-line infection control staff and let patients down.
	Patients should have access to reliable and comparable information on infection rates, not just in the NHS, but in the private sector. For patients, doctors and nurses, a critical element in the quality control feedback loop is missing as a result of what the Government have so far failed to do. Putting it in place should be a priority.
	The motion refers to the 955 deaths attributed to MRSA in 2003. That figure is based on data from death certificates, but it is clear that that is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, no one knows precisely how many people die as a consequence of MRSA. The only way to get a true picture of the extent to which MRSA contributes to deaths in hospitals requires, according tothe national statistician, Len Cook, special epidemiological research. It is time that more research in that area was commissioned. I hope that the Minister gives us some idea of whether such research will be carried out to achieve a proper fix on the number of deaths from MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections.
	In opening the debate, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said that front-line staff should have the authority to close wards to control infections, but that should be done by front-line staff with expertise working in collaboration with ward staffnot only matrons, but infection control teams. I agree with Beverly Malone, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, who said recently:
	The truth is matrons need to work in collaboration with other health professionals and managers to ensure the system works best for patients.
	There should be no question of political targets getting in the way of such critical clinical judgment calls.
	The leader of the Conservative party recently called for the return of matron, but why did successive Conservative Health Ministers fail to bring back matron between 1979 and 1997? How was the authority of front-line nursing staff over cleaning, hygiene and housekeeping undermined in the first place? I believe that the pressure to hit waiting time targets has made matters worse. As the NAO report showed, waiting time targets conflict with the prevention and control of infection.
	I do not believe that targets can ever capture the complexity of delivering high-quality health care in this country. Targets inevitably miss the point. Last November, Dr. Andrew Bamji, a senior doctor at Queen Mary's Sidcup Trust, said that pressure to meet A and E waiting targets was undermining measures to tackle hospital infections. While Dr. Bamji was on holiday, two patients were admitted to his rehabilitation unit without being screened for MRSA, despite the protests of senior nurses. One of the patients later turned out to be infected with MRSA. Because of the target, a unit that had maintained a more or less MRSA-free record for more than two years became infected.
	In December last year Annette Jeanes, lead nurse in infection control at Lewisham hospitalmentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd)said of the four-hour wait target in A and E
	You have people waiting in A and E and you physically do not have the beds to put them in. When a bed becomes available, there is not time to wash the beds and allow them to dry.
	Preventing, controlling and containing hospital infections should never come second to political targets.
	The rise of the hospital superbugs may have been fuelled by the Government's obsession with targets, but it did not start with that. Day-to-day control of everything that goes on in a hospital ward was first shattered back in the 1980s when a Conservative Government ordered hospitals to contract out their cleaning. Price and price alone became kingquality of service certainly did not. That generated the fragmentation of responsibility on the ward from which we undoubtedly still suffer today.
	In 2000, the Department of Health issued a circular setting out a programme of action for the NHS on management and control of hospital infection. There has been no national audit of compliance with that circular and Health Ministers have made it clear that the Government have no plans to undertake such an audit. When Winning Ways was published in December 2003, the chief medical officer gave one of the reasons why an audit had not yet been conducted. He said:
	Despite the extent of the guidance issued to the NHS, such data as are available show that the degree of improvement has been small.
	Ensuring compliance with guidance should be a priority.
	There is no single quick-fix solution to the problem of hospital infections, but it is clear that concerted efforts involving, for instance, screening, hand washing and isolation can reduce the spread of superbugs. Good ventilation systems in wards, theatres and isolation rooms are vital to the combating of infectious diseases. According to the NAO, however, only one in three infection control teams felt that their hospital had appropriate isolation facilities.
	The Department's 2000 circular required trusts to undertake risk assessments to determine appropriate provision of isolation facilities in each trust, but according to the NAO's report last year more than 70 trusts still had not done so. Of those who had, just 25 had obtained the necessary isolation facilities. There is no timetable for action on the results of risk assessment and there appears to be no sense of urgency either at the top, in the Department, or on the ground in NHS trusts.
	It is a scandal that Ministers do not know how many isolation rooms there are in the NHS. How can the Government's contingency planning to tackle the threat of flu and other pandemics be acceptable and ring true if we do not have such basic information? There should be an urgent audit of current provision and future plans for isolation rooms.
	If infection control is to make a difference, everyone who works in health and care must take it seriously. It is not just a problem in hospitalsit is a problem in other care settings as well. The role of infection control nurses and doctors in leading the cultural change is crucial. It must be cause for concern that, four years after the NAO published its first report on hospital-acquired infections, its follow-up report concluded that the budgets of one in four infection control teams had been cutnot increased, but cut. How on earth can they be expected to do their job?
	Cutting infection is not rocket science. It is about relearning some of the lessons that Florence Nightingale taught more than 100 years ago. Fighting infection is a task for everyone who works in the NHS. What is needed may not be search and destroy, but it is certainly a zero-tolerance approach to infections in our hospitals.
	The Liberal Democrats will vote for the motion, because it sets out the case for urgent action to fight infection. We will not support the Government's amendment, because it is far too long-winded and self-congratulatory. We do not need congratulations tonight. We need definitive action to deal with the problems of superbugs in our hospitals and to ensure that people do not become sicker when they went into hospital to be cured.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several Members are hoping to catch my eye and the time for debate is limited. If brief contributions are made, perhaps more Members will be successful.

Shona McIsaac: I was dismayed to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He is oversimplifying what is a very complex issue and ignoring much of the associated science. The Conservatives talk about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as if it were a single homogenous phenomenon, but it is not: 17 strains of MRSA have some resistance to penicillin treatment. Clones 15 and 16 have become much more dominant in recent years in the UK, which is why we have witnessed an increase in such cases in our hospitals. In fact, clone 16 accounts for about half of all cases of MRSA in the UK.
	If Tory Front Benchers want to check that information, they should read the 25 February edition of The Daily Telegraph, in which Dr. Mark Enright of Bath university states:
	These clones appear to be highly transmissible compared to other MRSA clones, allowing them to easily spread from patient to patient . . . They are still quite uncommon in most other countries.
	That point is pertinent to today's debate and to the comments of Tory Front Benchers. They say that we should use some of the best practice in other countries, which has had an effect on MRSA, but in many cases we are not dealing with the same strains, so the techniques used in those countries might not be appropriate here. We are dealing with the most resistant and most transmissible strains, particularly MRSA 16.
	The genome for the MRSA 16 strain has recently been cracked and the toughness of that clone has become apparent: for example, it is very resistant to high temperature. There has been talk today of the need to wash nurses' uniforms and so on, but if we are to tackle this problem we need to bear it in mind that this strain can survive high temperatures.
	Tory Front Benchers have also ignored the fact that Staphylococcus aureus is very common. Many of us carry it and, indeed, some 30 per cent. of the UK population are probably carrying it on their skin or in their noses and throats, so a third of those of us who enter the Division Lobby tonight will be carrying it. Some people also carry the resistant strains 15 and 16. We are dealing with something that is very common among the general public, but which will not have much of an effect on them. However, clone 16, which is causing most of the problems in the UK, does affect those with weakened immune systems and those who gather with many others in a single placesuch as hospitalsbecause of its highly transmissible nature.
	It has been argued that the problem has suddenly arisen because of cleaning contracts. Although that is an important subject, I am not convinced that that is where the blame lies. We need to consider why Staphylococcus aureus has become so resistant, and much of the explanation lies in its very nature. It mutates constantly. What was happeningwe need to go back to the 1960s and 70sis that antibiotics were prescribed when they were not, strictly speaking, necessary. The weakest strains died off and now we are seeing the prevalence of the resistant strains. That is why it is vital that everyone who is prescribed an antibiotic even now takes the full course. People may feel better after a few days, but if they do not complete the course, the resistant clones may become more dominant.
	How do we tackle the problem? We need to reflect on the prescribing of antibiotics. Many primary care trusts and hospitals are considering that aspect and it is also vital to ensure cleanliness in hospitals, as the virus is likely to be transmitted through hand-to-hand contact.

Phyllis Starkey: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the contracting out of cleaning services per se was directly associated with the increase in MRSA, there remains something to be said about the downward cost pressure, which reduced the amount of money being spent on cleaningwhether in-house or contracted outand did partly contribute to falling standards within hospitals? Where the overall health budget was very constrained in the past, the additional cost pressures were even greater. Thankfully, under the present Government, it is no longer quite such a problem.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend makes some very fair points. I was trying to emphasise that dealing with the problem of MRSA is not simply a matter of cleaning. Cleaning is one factor and good hand washing is important. We need to reduce skin-to-skin contact, which can transmit the virus.
	My local trust has pioneered some of the important work that needs to be done. It is another reason why I feel that the Tories portrayed the problem in a way that is most unfair on hospital staff, particularly those working in the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust. It has been one of the pilots for the clean your hands initiative. I mentioned on 2 February that the MRSA rate was on the decline. In the period from April 2001 to March 2003, there were 36 MRSA cases, 34 in the following year and then it went down to 28. Those 28 reports of MRSA equate to a rate of 0.09 per 1,000 bed days. It is clearly declining in my trust, which has also won national awards for cleanliness, so it is despicable for Conservative Members to go around portraying every hospital in the country as filthy. Excellent work is going on and I believe that the staff in my trust should be praised for their work in leading the national initiative through this programme.

John Hayes: It is right to view much of our debate as beyond, or one might say above, party politics. It is important to debate the issues in those terms, but I must tell the Minister that the suggestion that the problem has not worsened since 1980 does no favours to her, to the House or to the quality of our debate, because that is clearly not the case, as the statistics reveal. I shall deal with them in some detail in a few moments.

Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I have only just started. All right, I will give way because I am such a nice chap.

Phyllis Starkey: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentlemanand I stress that last word. My understanding of what my hon. Friend the Minister said was that the total rate of hospital-acquired infections was not worse. Everybody accepts, however, that the proportion of those infections that are caused by MRSA has increased.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, and it perhaps reveals that if Ministers do not make themselves clear, it is likely to lead to a misunderstanding of what they mean. The Minister was clearly making a partisan point. I hoped to move on from that by making a speech that is largely non-partisan.
	In that spirit, it is of course true to say that MRSA is more common now for a variety of reasons, not all of which are the result of public policy. The reasons include the ageing population, the survival of more sick people, and the likelihood of transmission in a more mobile population. But the fact that MRSA organisms are often associated with patients in hospitalbecause they are, implicitly, sick, usually weak and often oldmeans that we must face certain public policy imperatives. We need a holistic approach to the problem. I am tempted to add phrases such as sustainable, involving stakeholders and joined-up thinking, as well as other new Labour-speak, but I shall move on.
	The holistic approach needed begins with an acceptance of some of the facts and figures. For that purpose, we should be clear about the National Audit Office report. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said, the report says that at least 5,000 patients a year die from MRSA; that such infections cost the NHS as much as 1 billion a year; and that at any one time at least 9 per cent. of patients have an infection acquired during their hospital stay. The effect of those infections varies, from relatively minor to death.

Mark Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NAO said in its latest report, published in 2004, that had the Government implemented the recommendations in its previous report in 2000, up to 750 lives a year could have been saved? Some of his constituents use the same hospital in Boston as many of minePilgrim hospitaland the issue causes them immense worry and concern, but it is not an attack on the hard-working staff of the NHS in our area to say so.

John Hayes: I am delighted to take my hon. Friend's advice on the latest statistics. He is renowned in Lincolnshire as a champion of the interests of the people of Boston and the surrounding area in respect of health and many other issues, and he is right to say that the NHS staff there and elsewhere do a first-class job. I am sorry to say that one of the smears that has emerged from this debate from Labour Members is the suggestion that Conservatives do not believe in the NHS. Let us put that to bed immediately. My two sons were born in Pilgrim hospital in Boston on the NHS, and I have never had private health treatment in my life. Neither have many other Conservative Members. We believe in the NHS no less than Labour Members. We want an NHS that is effective, that spends money properly and that deals with problems in the best way possible. That is true for MRSA as it is true for many other aspects of health provision.
	Let us be straightforward about other facts that the Government challengedthey may be in denialincluding the statistics showing that the problem has increased. Reports of bloodstream infections caused by MRSA have increased from 7,384 in 200203 to 7,647 in 200304 on the latest figures. That is a 3.6 per cent. increase, and we have no reason to believe that the rate of increase has fallen recently.
	In the first three years of mandatory surveillance, the number of infectionsboth methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistantincreased, and the number of bloodstream infections caused by the methicillin-sensitive strains increased by 9.2 per cent. in 200203. The proportion of blood isolates resistant to methicillin is 44 per cent. in the United Kingdom. It is only 1 per cent. in Denmark; 1 per cent. in the Netherlands; 11 per cent. in Austria; and 23 per cent. in Spain. Only Greece matches the UK figure.

Shona McIsaac: Has the hon. Gentleman also noticed the rates in Japan and the USA? In fact, their rates are higher than the UK's. No one would associate either of those countries with poor hygiene conditions. Again, the picture is complex, which relates to different strains of MRSA.

John Hayes: I know virtually nothing about the health service in the USA or Japan, and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to respond to that intervention in any less honest way.
	This is an increasing problem. That fact needs to be recognised, and I hope that the Government will accept thatin raising it from the Opposition Benches in the very bold and comprehensive way that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) did in his splendid opening remarkswe are not just illustrating a profound concern among Conservative Members but reflecting a profound concern among those people whom we represent. It is not good enough to say that we are scaremongering. My constituents raise the issue with meI will not say every day, but certainly with alarming regularity. This is a real problem felt by the British people, and it deserves proper scrutiny by the House and an adequate response from the Government.
	The Minister said that dealing with hospital cleanliness and MRSA was not a sufficient health policy. Perhaps she is right; this issue obliges us to look at some of the fundamentals about health, and in looking at them in preparing for the debate, I was alarmed at what I found. For example, it is sometimes claimed that the UK enjoys a similar quality of health care to that of other developed countries, but although indices such as life expectancy are similar, they are affected by many factors other than health care.
	A recent study that measured the contribution of the national health care system to health outcomes placed the UK 18th out of the 19 developed countries studied. Similarly, a lot is of made of the Government's achievements in waiting times. It is true that the longest waiting times have fallen, but average waiting times have been little affected by Government policy. On one measurethe average waiting time of people on the listaverage waiting times have only just started to fall significantly. On anotherthe waiting times of patients actually treated in any yearwaiting times have actually increased.
	Similarly, the Minister accused us of having no policy on mortality from major diseases, such as cancer and heart disease. It is true that deaths from cancer and heart disease have fallen steadily since 1999, but the Office for National Statistics has shown that the falling trend began in 1980 and has been sustained by improvements in lifestyle, particularly the reduction in smoking, improved diet and so on, rather than the extra funding of the past five years.
	In summary, the OECD judged the Government's policy on health and concluded that the extra spending had made little difference to the mortality trend. It said:
	In the health sector there are few indicators showing unambiguous improvements in outcomes over and above trend improvements that were already apparent before the surge in spending.
	So although the Minister said that we have no interest in those matters, that we have no policy on waiting lists or waiting times, that we are not interested in oncology and that we take no broader view of health, she should now acknowledge that not only is that not so, but when a broader view is taken, the Government's record is rather less rosy than she might suppose or want to suggest.

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman still has not said anything about his health policy.

John Hayes: Well, the hon. Lady says that from a sedentary position, but she has accused usas Hansard will showof not having policies on anything other than clean hospitals. We are interested in such matters and we have policies on them. I mentioned those issues, which are relevant to the motion, because she did.

Melanie Johnson: My remarks simply highlighted the fact that the Conservatives have no policies on those various matters. The hon. Gentleman made points about cancer and coronary heart disease, but he gave no indication of what their policies on such matters would be.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady attempts to divert me from the main message that I want to deliver, which is that she needs to take the motion, the subject and the concern of Opposition Members and the British people a little more seriously.
	One of my constituents, a woman in her 30s, went into a local hospital for a hysterectomy. Unfortunately, she acquired MRSA, but it was not diagnosed until after she had left hospital. She died eight weeks later. That is the reality of the situation that her family and friends must face, and it explains why the debate must not be taken lightly. We need to step beyond some of the party political knockabout, which I am sorry to say preoccupied the Minister for too much of her speech.
	What can be done? We need preventative measures, including a culture change in the attitudes of all those involved in training and managing staff. We need better risk analysis and clean hospitals. When the disease occurs, we need proper responses to it, which means rapid identification, effective isolation, and the most appropriate drugs treatment in terms of both quantities and regime. We also need proper research and science.
	An uncourageous attitude to the problem will not make a difference, and not making a difference will cost more lives like that of my constituent. I am not prepared to pay that price and do not think that any hon. Member should bethe Conservative Front Bench certainly is not. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to pay that price.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am pleased that I have been called to speak, because I have been somewhat frustrated and angry. For several I, like several hon. Members, have drawn attention to the problem of hospital-acquired infections and MRSA, but we have not been listened to appropriately by either Conservative or Labour Ministers. However, for the record, I wish to draw a distinction between Ministers in the early years of the Labour Government and the present Health team. This problem was not addressed at a sufficiently early stage by successive Ministers.
	Reference has been made to the causes of MRSA, of which there are many. There can be no doubt that the success of the national health service in having a greater throughput of patients is a contributing factor. One can also cite the slack regime of many medical staff, especially doctors, who should know better. They obviously do not like wearing white coats at present, and although I do not want to emphasise that point, it is indicative of the problem. Further factors are the minimal cleaning of ambulances, because they are used extensively, and the lack of destruction of bed linen and instruments, because of the serious cost implications of doing so.
	The Conservative motion invites us to compare the Labour Government's stewardship of the matter with the previous situation. I hope that I am saying this objectively, but I do not think that that can be done. Part of the problem was that no statistics were available under the Conservative Government, which was also the case in the early years of the Labour Government. I draw a distinction between previous Health Ministers and the current ministerial team, because the latter have addressed that problem, albeit late. They have given themselves a presentational problem, because now that we have more accurate reporting, people are saying, All this is out of hand.
	The problem was always there, but it was deliberately suppressed, not so much by Ministers, whether Labour or Tory, but by the people who run the NHS. There was a conspiracy of silence, which still exists, partly because hospitals and individual practitioners in the health service were worried about litigation. Given the competitive nonsense of star-rated hospitals, naturally people are worried about admitting the extent of infection. There are resource implications. If wards or facilities are closed, that has an impact on waiting lists and so on.

Mark Simmonds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: I am afraid that I will not. The hon. Gentleman will share my frustration that the speeches of the Tory and Labour Front-Bench spokesmen lasted until eight minutes past six. This is supposed to be a debate, which means that we should all have a go, so if he will forgive me, I will not give way to him.
	Fair comparisons cannot be made between the situation now and in the past. There has been too much partisan politics this afternoon. In The Independent on 8 March 1997, Anthony Bevins and Paul Routledge reported:
	John Horam, Health Minister said in a Commons reply that the total numbers of cases of  . . . MRSA . . . was not 'collected centrally', and the ministry had no idea of the number of cases in which the bug 'contributed to or caused death'.
	That was part of the problem, but officials running the NHS were also to blame. Ultimately, of course, Ministers must take the blame. As recently as February 2000, Sir Alan Langlands, former chief executive of the NHS and part of the magic circle that runs the country, whether under a Labour or a Tory Government, was asked whether hospitals would be given targets for curbing infections. He said:
	I don't think I want to pin myself to a target at the moment, simply because we need to have a proper surveillance system that gives us baseline numbers against which we can set targets.
	Sir Alan did not recognise the extent of the problem. Like many others, he did not want to admit the scale of the issue. He adopted a laid-back approach.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said that I had raised the subject on a number of occasions in the House, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that. However, he also blamed Labour for not pressing harder on the issue when in opposition. I was a member of that Opposition. I was not a Front BencherI never will be, thank Godbut I was one of a number of Members who raised the issue. I double-checked my figures, and at least five peers raised it in the other place before 1997, including my colleague Lord Fitt of Belfast, whose moving speech I commend to hon. Members. I believe that Baroness Cumberlege replied to him, and she was working from the same brief that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr.   Horam) used in his reply to my Adjournment debate. The thrust of their argument was that we were exaggerating the scale of the problem. We were Back Benchers, so they did not have to take any notice of us. They kept their heads down and spoke from their brief in the belief that there was nothing to worry about.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) also secured a debate on the issue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). In fact, about 15 Back Benchers raised the issue in the closing stages of the last Tory Government, but it was ignored. We therefore depended very much on voluntary reporting. The Whip has raised his finger, but I wish to make one more point.
	In his reply to my Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Orpington said:
	Mostly, the type of infection will be trivial, but for patients who are in hospital, it can sometimes be serious, as the hon. Gentleman has noted . . . The infections are no worse than those caused by the ordinary bacterium.[Official Report, 19 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 859.]
	He counselled me that it was important to get the matter in perspective and said that I was
	ill advised to introduce party politics
	into such matters. I am guilty of many sins, but I did not do that then, and I have not done it today. Both sides are to blame to some extent, and we should urgently address the problem by homing in on poor managers in the NHS, particularly senior ones who have suppressed the truth.
	The Minister is guilty of many sins, but when she was a Treasury Minister she was the first person to see to it that there were no longer fibs on death certificates. She ensured that the cause of death was properly recorded. Previously, pneumonia and septicaemia might be put down as the cause of death, when the truth was that the death was MRSA-related. My hon. Friend remedied that. However, now that there is accurate reporting, she faces a problem. She is being chastised by the Opposition.

Chris Grayling: In today's Britain, our lives are in greater danger when we are in hospital than when we are driving a car. What an extraordinary position to be in. MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections are ripping people's lives apart. Children have lost parents, parents have lost children and families have been torn apart.
	It is not just that our lives are in danger; it is that our long-term health and well-being are also in danger. I know of cases of people losing limbs after catching MRSA in our hospitals; children who have been left partially handicapped after catching MRSA in our hospitals; and people who have been left housebound for months because of hospital-acquired infections. It is nothing short of a national disgrace, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) put it, it is a profound concern.
	It is an absurd protestation from the Minister, in what I am sure will be her last speech in the House, that the problem has not changed in 25 years. Let me give her a direct example of why she is wrong. Pressure from the Government is making things worse. In my constituency, Epsom hospital is under great pressure. The neighbouring accident and emergency department at Crawley has been closed. The hospital is swamped with work and has a huge overflow of patients as a result of that closure. But the Government are demanding that it meet the four-hour waiting time target in accident and emergency, even with the extra patients. They are not just demanding; they are threatening managers if they fail to meet that target.

Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling: No, I have only five minutes.
	Direct and unpleasant pressure is being put on the management team. Operations are being cancelled and elderly patients are being moved into a store room that has been converted at the neighbouring hospital, which was once a ward. As a member of staff who came to see me recently, too scared initially to give her name, said:
	Infection control guidelines have gone out of the window.
	Epsom is not an isolated case. Throughout the NHS, doctors, nurses and hospital managers are coming under the most intense pressure to meet the requirements of Ministers. Some have even resorted to falsifying the figures, and infection control goes out of the window. Is it any wonder that the MRSA problem is getting worse and worse?
	Is it not astonishing and alarming that 100,000 people a year catch a hospital-acquired infection? Surely Ministers have learnt from the experience of their own constituents how bad the problem is. The problem is one of rising disease, rising infection and appalling hygiene standards in many of our hospitals.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred to one of his constituents who also wrote to me about the state of the toilets in that hospital. He said:
	I decided to try the other toilet; this doubles as a store room and at the time of my visit  of the floor space was taken up with wheelchairs and large cardboard boxes . . . Bear in mind that all these boxes had come off the back of a lorry . . . Having used the lavatory, in order to get to the  . . . wash basin it was necessary to move 2 or 3 wheelchairs thereby possibly contaminating the wheelchair.
	That description is from a hospital that gets a green light on hygiene from the Governmentanother meaningless statistic from the Government that bears no relation whatever to the real experience of patients. All of this is happening today in hospitals around the country as we debate in this place.
	The Government seek to pass the blame on to the last Conservative Government. They want the country to believe that the problem is down to contracting out cleaning services, but their own studies show that there is no correlation between contracting out and hospital-acquired infections. I have not noticed Ministers rushing to bring cleaning contracts back in-house. If a cleaning company is not doing its job properly, perhaps it is time to change the cleaning company.
	Is it not about time that we addressed the problem in the real way that is necessary? Is it not about time that we had nurses properly in charge of their wardsa new generation of matrons with the power to withhold money from cleaning companies and if necessary to close a ward to ensure that it can be properly cleaned?
	The Government have palpably failed to tackle the problem of MRSA, and their clumsy attempts to micro-manage the NHS from Whitehall are just making matters worse. In Britain today people are scared to go to hospital. What a damning indictment of eight years of Labour rule. What a disgrace in a country such as ours. It is time to do something about it, and after 5 May the next Conservative Government will do something about it.

Stephen Ladyman: In common with many Conservative Members, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has told us that he believes in the national health service, but his speech was designed to denigrate the NHS and the people who work in it. He did not have one word of praise for the hard work of NHS employees or one whisper about the improvements to the NHS or the attempts to improve the problems that he highlighted.
	No onecertainly no Labour Memberdoubts the seriousness of MRSA or tries to minimise its importance. However, it is one thing to emote, to frighten people and to pass anecdotes in this House, and it is another to tackle the issue. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that the NHS treats 1 million people every 36 hours. Given the scale of the NHS, certain challenges must be faced, but he did not say one serious word about how to face them.
	We are all politicians, and we all do a bit of point scoring, with which I have no problem. However, it was stomach-churningly unpleasant to listen to scientific illiteracy on a massive scale from Conservative Members, whose comments did not include a word of science. They failed to understand that we must examine the evidence and the science, and base our policies on that examination, in order to deal with MRSA.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) seemed to think that MRSA and hospital-acquired infections are synonymous, and he did not seem to understand the distinction. When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) pointed out that the proportion of MRSA in the general population might be an important factor, the hon. Gentleman did not understand. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) understood that point and grasped some of the science, which is more than I can say of any Conservative Member.

John Hayes: The Minister disappoints me, because I made the specific point that MRSA could exist in the wider population, and I identified those groups in the population who might be susceptible to it. That is not a cop-out for him, and he should not pretend that it is.

Stephen Ladyman: In a brilliantly succinct point, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West explained the significance of the higher proportion of MRSA in the general population in a way in which children watching Blue Peter could have understood. The higher proportion of MRSA in the general population is important because MRSA is passed from person to person, and the important strains in our population are passed in that way. That explanation went a mile over the hon. Gentleman's head and he did not have the slightest clue what she was talking about. Conservative Members did not seem to understand that that factor is important and that we must base our policies on the science.
	At least the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) recognised that MRSA was not invented in 1997. He described the Tory policy as, Say nothing, do nothing and learn nothing, and for once I agree with himthat description of Tory policy is so nice and simple that I will almost certainly steal it at some point in the future. The hon. Gentleman discussed single rooms and isolation facilities, but he ignored the fact that the latest NHS building projects include about 50 per cent. single rooms.
	Hon. Members must ask themselves this question: which party is more likely to build an NHS that can tackle the problem? Is it the party that spent 33 billion on the NHS in 1997 and said that that was more than enough, or is it the party that has already doubled that expenditure?

Peter Luff: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 281.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 156.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to tackle hospital-acquired infections with a robust programme for improving standards in infection control; congratulates the Government on its action plan for reducing infection rates, Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection, and the introduction of the new target to halve the rate of MRSA in the first instance, and the appointment of local directors of infection prevention and control to cut cross-infection locally; supports the Chief Medical Officer's action plan Winning Ways; recognises that MRSA is a longstanding problem that became endemic in the National Health Service between 1993 and 1997 and believes that this Government is to be congratulated on introducing a system of mandatory surveillance for MRSA to establish its full extent; notes that the Government is working with experts from home and abroad to identify the actions and best practice which will make a difference, including a matron's charter, a national hand hygiene campaign, improved standards and better inspection of hospital cleanliness; and therefore congratulates the Government on its comprehensive programme of investment and reform that has equipped the NHS to deliver improvements in patient safety, and to reduce hospital acquired infections.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.

Employment

That the draft Gangmasters (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Planning Law

James Gray: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of Minety in my constituency, whose pleasant rural village was invaded some 18 months ago by 57 Gypsy caravans over one weekend. The legal nightmare has continued ever since in a desperate attempt to remove these illegal campers.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the residents and friends of the village of Minety, Wiltshire
	Declares that there have been blatant breaches of Planning Law by Gypsies and travellers developing land for use as caravan sites without permission.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reaffirm that Planning Law applies equally to all sections of the community and provides those who apply the Law the necessary powers for prompt and effective enforcement.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

MECHANISED WHEELCHAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

Bob Russell: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has responsibility for community care. He is a Minister for whom I have a lot of respectbut I believe that he is not the appropriate Minister to respond to the debate. His presence confirms the muddled situation in respect of mechanised wheelchairs and the urgent need for the Government to introduce joined-up thinking on a matter of considerable and growing concern as to who should have responsibility.
	While it is appropriate for the Department of Health to have an interest, the Department for Transport perhaps should be the lead Department. Indeed, that Department is engaged in a consultation exercise on this very subject.
	Several constituents have contacted me to express concern as to the general safety not only of those who use mechanised wheelchairs, but of others who come into contactliterally in some instanceswith such vehicles on the pavement or elsewhere. There are also concerns over insurance, maintenance of the vehicles and the worrying fact that users are not required to demonstrate that they are competent to drive them. This is a very serious issue, and there have been numerous accidents, including fatalities.
	I am most grateful to Mr. Richard Boyd, chief executive of the Essex Disabled People's Association, who has given me considerable background information for the case I am putting this evening. Mr. Boyd is a former chairman of the Essex police authority and a former council leader. He is also a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. His record of public service, coupled with his current post, makes him a formidable champion for those with disabilitiesthat involves the need to improve matters in all respects with regard to mechanised wheelchairs and their users.
	I would also like to place on record my appreciation of Colchester Shopmobility, which provides a wonderful service for those with disabilities who wish to come to the town centre and who use a range of mechanised wheelchairs. Colchester Shopmobility is an example of best practice that many other towns would do well to emulate. It is regrettable, therefore, that the borough council not only cut the funding in recent years, but has now drawn up plans to demolish Shopmobility's headquarters without as yet having found an equally suitable location and facility.
	I have referred to the Department for Transport consultation, which ran from 10 November to 14 January. An outcome is awaited. It is regrettable, however, that the consultation was so short and that it embraced Christmas and new year, which made it very difficult for the voluntary sector to give this important matter the detailed consideration it deserves.
	Pavement and road scooters are, and have been, a boon for elderly, frail, chronically sick and disabled people. The use of these vehicles has grown rapidly, especially in the past 10 years. Clearly, their purpose is to empower individuals and to open up the mainstream physical environment. Accordingly, they and their users interact with the wider public, be they pedestrians on the footway or road vehicle users on the highway.
	It is self-evident that the scooters and their users are more vulnerable than other road users. Conversely, they present a potential danger to pedestrians. The legal and regulatory regime for scootersor invalid carriages, as they are quaintly described in lawis at best unclear and at worst a muddle. There appear to be no accurate statistics on how many scooters are in use. The sale ofthese products is effectively uncontrolled and unmeasured. No benefit is gained from a heavy-handed regulatory system, but I believe that, given a partnership with the voluntary sector, an improvement inand clarity aboutsupport for users and purchasers can be achieved.
	Who in Government has a stake in good governance for the safe use and supply of scooters? I have sought advice from colleagues in the voluntary sector. It appears that there are five main players, each convinced that someone else has a larger role to play. The Department of Health, along with its Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, has a remit: it appears that scooters are medical devices. The Department for Transport also admits to an involvement, saying that invalid carriages are products that provide mobility for older and disabled people. It has focused on highway safety. In November 2004 it commissioned research on scooters for disabled people, as well as two-wheeled petrol or electrically powered scooters, off-road scooters and powered buggies. The collective term that I am using tonight is mechanised wheelchairs.
	The Department for Work and Pensions, through the office of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who is the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, admits to an interest as well. One would assume its focus to be on disabled people and the statutory, commercial and voluntary sectors that serve and support scooter users.
	There is a fourth category: local authorities, which, through their trading standards function, must have a duty to enforceand an interest in enforcingsafety legislation for new or second-hand wheelchairs. And the police must have an interest, if only in dealing with inappropriate use or conflict between scooter users and other footway or road users. They were clearly involved in the investigation of a fatality last year, in which a scooter user in Essex was killed.
	All those arms of authority admit to some responsibility, but it appears that at the end of each arm is a hand, with a finger that points to the next in line as being the main player. Three gaps, addressed by none of them, cause me concern. First, there is user safety, which encompasses operating skills and product suitability assessment, with regular reassessment of both. Wheelchairs must be fit for the purpose: machine must be matched to user. Secondly, there is mandatory public liability insurance to protect the user and the wider public from the repercussions of accident or damage. Thirdly, there is product safety, which includes a regime for routine maintenance and safety checks. That protects the user from poorly adjusted or poorly maintained vehicles, but also deals with the unscrupulous seller of second-hand equipment.
	The authorities need to get a grip, join up their thinking and not dilute their concentration by focusing entirely on the highways use of a wide range of powered and unpowered wheelchairs, scooters, buggies or off-road machines. As a mechanical product, a pavement or road scooter has an anticipated life span of between 10 and 20 years. Given the age and physical, sensory or cognitive condition of most users, it can be assumed that such products may have up to five users during their operation life span. The machines outlive the users. Substantial anecdotal evidence from the voluntary sector suggests that soonif it has not already happenedmore scooters and wheelchairs will be sold or handled on the second-hand market than are sold as new.
	The voluntary sector, often in partnership with the local authorities, is involved in Shopmobility schemesthere is one in Colchesterdisability resource centres, centres for independent living and disability advice. Many major supermarkets and shopping mall operators lend or hire footway scooters to their clientele. The second-hand market can be observed at boot sales, in the for sale columns in the local press and at retail outlets in most towns. Specialist distributors are often based at factory sites close to other out-of-town retail outlets. Those pools of activity form a wide reservoir of knowledge and experience of footway and road scooter use.
	Who is actually looking at the situation? Who is plumbing that reservoir of expertise? Surely not just the Department for Transport, through its transport and travel specialist contractor. Most wheelchair users use the class 2 footway types of scooter, and should not go on to the highway. Why was the voluntary sector not instructed to act as the lead research focus? There are many examples of high-quality research undertaken by the sector, in which front-line information has been obtained rapidly. Why did the Department for Transport pay a commercial organisation, which has to get the real-life data from the voluntary sector anyway? Was not consideration given to the possibility that the same amount, or even less, paid directly to the voluntary sector would encourage development of that sector?
	When mechanised wheelchairs first came on to the market in a big way in the 1980s, sales were mainly through specialist dealerships. Mr. Boyd told me:
	Twenty years ago scooters would be 'matched' to the needs of the user, either by occupational therapists employed by social services, or health providers. Users would receive instruction on driving and manoeuvring in or near pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
	Such support is not available from many of the outlets that today sell mechanised wheelchairs, nor from the rapidly expanding and unregulated second-hand market. Let us consider the not untypical case of the well-intentioned person buying a second-hand or new scooter for a needy relative. Currently in Essex, according to Mr Boyd, there is a waiting time of between 11 and 21 weeks for advice from social care. He told me:
	Usually, trying to get something quickly and as cheaply as possible, the product is second-hand. No handbook, no operating instructions, no service history, and probably the most rudimentary driving instructions. How can issues such as manual dexterity for sensitive speed controls, eye-sight and hearing be objectively assessed by the concerned relative?
	Although my debate is about mechanised wheelchairs, Members might wish to know that the Department for Transport sub-divides invalid carriages into three classes. Class 1 consists of unpowered wheelchairs, self-propelled or pushed by a third party. Class 2 consists of powered, generally small vehicles that are for indoor or outdoor use, such as scooters used on the footway. They have three or four wheels, their travel distance is limited and they should not be driven at above 4 mph. Class 3 consists of powered wheelchairs or scooters, for use outdoors on footways and roads. They have a road speed of 8 mph, but should not be driven above 4 mph on footways.
	I am told that currently, more than 60 models of class-2 scooters and wheelchairs, and 30 of class 3, are available on the market. The price of a new class-2 vehicle varies between 1,500 and 2,500; that of a class-3 vehicle varies between 2,000 and 4,000. A class-3 road scooter can weigh as much as 2 cwt. At a speed of 4 mphlet alone of an illegal 8 mpha 15-stone user hitting a child or elderly pedestrian would cause injury or even kill them. I ask the Minister to say whether a person driving a mechanised wheelchair on the road needs to have a driving licence. Does the vehicle have to be registered and display a number plate, and is third-party insurance a legal requirement?
	The British Healthcare Trades Association brochure entitled Get Wise: Highway Code for Electric Scooter and Wheelchair UsersI must admit that I do not have that publication by my bedsidecould form the basis of a minimum requirement of competence that anyone wishing to drive a mechanised wheelchair would need. Mr. Boyd tells me:
	The advice from Trading Standards in Essex has been consistent, that they share the concerns about safety, insurance and suitability of product to user, but feel that these issues have to be addressed by new legislation.
	I hope that this evening I have conveyed sufficient concern to cause the Government to give serious consideration to the action that needs to be taken to ensure that safety is of the utmost importance to those who use mechanised wheelchairs, and to others who could be harmed by users who are not competent to operate such vehicles. I further urge the Government to engage the voluntary sector, in order to provide the expertise that experienced organisations such as the Essex Disabled People's Association and Colchester Shopmobility can offer.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for raising the topic of the safety of powered wheelchairs and scooters. The Government take the safety of those products as seriously as he does and I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the matter this evening.
	It is not often at the start of an Adjournment debate that I, as a mere Under-Secretary, can say something that ought to satisfy the Member initiating the debate 100 per cent., but I am going to take the chance tonight. I am the Minister for wheelchairs. Until the Prime Minister tells me differently, I lead on wheelchairs. Of course, in so far as wheelchairs are classed as vehicles and therefore go on the highways, my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport will have some very serious involvement in these matters, and I will defer to them and always take their guidance on certain issues. But if the hon. Gentleman or his constituents ever wish to know which Government Department and which Minister is leading on this matter, it is the Department of Health and me.
	Before I respond to the main issues raised, I will provide some background to the relevant legislation and explain why I am fairly confident in saying that this is primarily a matter for the Department of Health, with the interest of the Department for Transport duly noted.
	Non-powered and powered wheelchairs, including scooters, are generally regarded as class 1 medical devices. As such, they are covered in England by the Medical Devices (Amendment) Regulations 2003, SI 2003 No. 1697. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to obtain that document straight after the debate. It amended the earlier 2002 regulations, so when he is in the Library, he will also need to acquire, if he wants to obtain the full picture, SI 2002 No. 618. Those regulations include essential requirements covering the risk management, design, production, labelling and user instructions of all devices. He will also want to acquire the European medical devices directive, Council directive 93/42/EEC, as the regulations bring it and its later amendments into UK legislation.
	Powered wheelchairs and powered scooters, designed to provide essential independent mobility for disabled people, are also definedI acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that this is where the confusion arisesas invalid carriages under the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988. If any disabled people watching our proceedings tonight are offended by use of the term invalid carriages, I apologiseI am sure that the hon. Gentleman would, toobut the term was in general usage back in 1988, so we have to use it when we refer to that legislation.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the 1988 regulations divided these machines into three classes. Class 1 covers manual wheelchairs. Class 2 applies to machines designed for use on the footway, travelling at speeds of up to 4 mph. Incidentally, that is generally regarded as walking pace, albeit reasonably brisk. They may also be used on the road to cross from one footway to another or where no footway is available. Finally, class 3 covers machines that can be used both on the footwaywhere, like class 2 vehicles, they are limited to 4 mphand on the road, where they can travel at up to 8 mph. From my experience in my constituency, I wonder whether all my law-abiding constituents, men and women, are limiting their vehicles to 4 mph when they are on the pavement. All classes of those vehicles may be used legally only by one person: it must be a disabled person or someone involved in the sale or maintenance of the vehicle or the training of the user.
	Powered wheelchairs and scooters should not be seen as an alternative to a private car. They were introduced to provide local outdoor mobility for disabled people who might otherwise be confined to their home. Indeed, for the purposes of road traffic legislation, these vehicles are defined as
	not being a motor vehicle.
	Powered wheelchairs or scooters do not need to meet the same construction standards as a motor vehicle and nor do their users need to meet the same fitness standards as those required of a driver. The level of control has generally been regarded as reasonable, given the speed restrictions and other limitations set in regulations covering their construction and use.
	My understanding is that the police have powers to check the speed of these vehicles on the pavement and on the highway, which paints a picture of policemen hiding behind trees with radar guns in order to leap out and catch hell's grannies as they perambulate through our constituencies.
	The Department for Transport has, as the hon. Gentleman said, recently engaged a research company to carry out a review of the invalid carriage regulations. The review will incorporate input from a wide selection of stakeholders, including the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA. Many of the manufacturers and suppliers are members of the British Healthcare Trades Association, the main trade association for wheelchair manufacturers and distributors. That organisation lays down standards for its members on the quality of products sold and the requirements for the ethical conduct of business.
	On behalf of the Secretary of State for Health, the MHRAan agency of the Department of Healthperforms the role of the competent authority for the regulations, ensuring that medical devices placed on the market in England meet all the relevant essential requirements of the regulations. The MHRA has a specialist team based at its wheeled mobility and seating centre in Blackpool, Lancashire, which has specific responsibility to oversee all safety-related issues concerning wheelchairs.
	The MHRA has links with all major stakeholders, such as the National Forum of Wheelchair User Groups, the National Wheelchair Managers Forum, the Foundation for Assistive Technology, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, the BHTA, local Trading Standards, the British Standards Institute, the Department for Transport and relevant NHS professional groups and training bodies. The MHRA investigates all reports of safety-related issues, including via its adverse incident reporting system, especially when injury or death has occurred. The reporting system is accessible to users, professional carers, manufacturers and distributors. It received and investigated 1,142 adverse incident reports relating to all types of wheelchairs in 2004. Of those, eight reports involved the fatality of the wheelchair user. As a direct result of the investigations during 2004, manufacturers have updated designs, testing processes and user information for their products.
	The MHRA issued a guidance document in 2004 specifically aimed at wheelchair users and two medical device alerts in January 2005 to raise specific action points for all concerned with the provision, prescription, repair and maintenance, and use of wheelchairs, seating and accessories. The guidance and the alerts have been distributed widely both in the NHS and to other interested stakeholders.
	As a result of previous investigations and feedback from stakeholders, the MHRA submitted, via the BSI UK experts group, various recommendations to update the content of the European standards for powered and non-powered wheelchairs. As both of those standards are harmonised to the European medical devices directive, manufacturers throughout Europe use them to show how they have met the essential requirements of the directive and, hence, how they meet the UK regulations.
	Recommendations covered improved requirements for braking systems and the contents and format of the user information provided with each wheelchair, in addition to many other detailed improvements. The BSI experts group supported those recommendations, which were submitted to the European standards expert group for consideration. As recently as last week, the European experts group accepted the main recommendations submitted. The amendments will now be included in the revision of both standards, which are due to be issued for final member country vote later this year.

Bob Russell: I welcome the big improvements for new machines for first-time purchasers, but problems often arise in the second-hand market, with the lack of maintenance and insurance, and questions about the competence of drivers.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point and I shall refer to one or two aspects of that in a moment. The second-hand market is a big concern and must be addressed.
	The MHRA will continue to provide advice and guidance, and will recommend changes to the relevant standards based on the experience gained from the adverse incident reports received. The number of wheelchair users in England is estimated to be about 1.2 million, of which some 800,000 have been supplied on long-term loan by NHS wheelchair services, which maintains its own prescription and supply systems based on local criteria. The largest age group of wheelchair users is over 65 years old, and is female. That user group is expected to increase in number as life expectancy increases.
	In line with Government policy, the long-term health needs of the population will be met by locally based services to allow people to remain independent in their own homes, so there will be an increased need for the provision of personal mobility equipment. All users of powered wheelchairs and scooters should receive adequate training when they are supplied with the equipment, either by the NHS or through the supplier of a private purchase. The NHS always assesses the competence of a user before issuing a powered wheelchair. Private sales, however, do not have any mandatory, structured assessment of competence before supply. However, the BHTA recently launched a code of practice for its members, which addressed, among other matters, the provision of adequate training for purchasers of wheelchairs.
	The speed restrictions and other limitations set in regulations covering powered wheelchairs are generally regarded as sufficient for class 2 or 4 mph powered wheelchairs, and class 3 or 8 mph wheelchairs. Many of the users may have been, or still are, car drivers and they will have experience of the highway code. To regulate the use of mechanised wheelchairs further would impose unnecessary restrictions on their availability to an increasing section of the population who are dependent on such equipment to provide them with an improved quality of life, when faced with limited mobility due to a disability.
	The control of the sale of second-hand mechanised wheelchairs, particularly when sold privately, is not an easy matter on which to legislateI accept the hon. Gentleman's concernsbut the BHTA's recently introduced code of practice is a welcome sign that the trade associations are taking the issue seriously. Of course that only applies when someone buys second hand from a trader. Obviously, there will be a failure to follow that sort of guidance when someone buys second hand from another private person.
	Insurance is not compulsory for powered wheelchairs. The Department of Health recommends that the users of class 3 powered wheelchairs should have third-party insurance. The Department for Transport also issues a code of practice and recommends that users check their domestic policies to find out whether they are covered and, if not, to take out separate cover. Previous consultations on the subject have shown that some disability groups opposed compulsory insurance, but the Department for Transport is seeking views on that issue as part of its review of the 1988 regulations.
	The MHRA continues to raise the need for regular maintenance by NHS wheelchair services and has recently issued a medical device alert that includes recommended action points to stress that adequate maintenance, in line with the manufacturers' instructions, is essential for all wheelchairs. Members of the BHTA also try to ensure that the purchasers of all wheelchairs are aware of the need to carry out regular maintenance of those products, in line with the manufacturers' instructions.
	To conclude, these wheelchairs are important tools that help people to maintain their independence, but we need to work hard to ensure that they are safe and safely used. I encourage anyone interested in this issue to make their views known to the Department for Transport while the review of regulations is under way, and I will ensure that the official record of this debate is brought to the attention of those who are conducting the review.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.